strikor

2x GTX 570 DCS 1.5 runs mostly smoothly with 1 screen 1080p, MSAA 4x, HDR on, med textures, high terrain textures, med traffic, water high, visib range high, shadows low, max viz. Waiting for GeForce 1000 series, feedback on improvement on DCS 2 and on Oculus to update my rig. DK2 was a disappointment with its low resolution on DCS.

"Good things come to those who wait". This is great news for the DCS franchise and the genre. Generating lots of traction with old and new users. Congrats to ED, partners, and users !!

Yep, I am probably expecting too much from DCS and should probably go to a real school for the pure flying elements, and use DCS for an approximation of combat elements. I've just realized that not maxing out turbulence and bird collisions in DCS never came to my mind... I was initially talking about civilian ATC and aircrafts that I wished to have in DCS (even if both are AI-controlled). I agree that ATC is not a priority / makes no sense in DCS w/o civilian airplanes.

Thanks! It's a favorite too ! The 2nd option is easier in case I mess up and want to avoid crashing / restarting the mission.

Thanks for the comments. On the boom boom, I thought that DCS was moving away from it with the A10C and the recent improvements on the flight models of the FC3 airplanes having set up the tone. Boom boom gameplay is surely something that DCS should be able to cater to a large audience but only w/o alienating the more hardcore community. On IFR and rolling decks, I disagree, a lot of people would care (at least as a learning experience rather using it everyday). It should be a well-developed feature of such detailed simulator, especially with a detailed F18 coming out. Just leave the option to simplify it / switch it off if the user wishes so. On priorities, ground-radar wins over ATC indeed. Not to say that an improved ATC shouldn't be added (ATC / AWACS controlled by user, like in MSFS). Again, I am no developer, so can't tell how development resource-consuming it would be.

Thanks for pointing me out the delusion on using MSFS as a shortcut to getting civilian airplanes in DCS. As mentioned, I am not a developer, so it may very well be irrealistic. Nonetheless, from a commercial perspective, I am still convinced that they would be a great addition to this sim for immersion and larger market (no matter which way developers come up to build it). I will have a better look at Prepar3d. I didn't purchase it indeed. If doesn't have rolling decks, then it's missing a very challenging yet a crucial element of the naval ops curriculum that I was looking for in DCS. On Whiting Field, I simply explained to you why the US Navy flight school is a benchmark for learning to fly (since you commented on it w/o knowing its existence). I did not say it was a benchmark to create a simulator, again I am an end user, not a developer, I don't really care about how to build the simulator. Seems natural for me that IFR would be a well-developed feature in a simulator where there is so much detail elsewhere. The first thing I did in my OP was to truly congratulate all developers for their work in DCS. I am an end user so my angle is always incomplete. Yet, on the idea of adding civilian airplanes, I didn't find it on the forums as being part of or decided to be excluded from the development roadmap, hence their inclusion in a wishlist. Tell me where to find and I will be happy to check it out. Happy 2015 to you

Disclaimer / Spoiler: I am no software developer, not with ED, I have had fun on sims for 15 years without the need for ultra-realistic-800-page tutorial-SIMULATION, and like most of us on these forums I know 1 or 2 things about user experience in sims. Your tone put aside, let's go to the essential: Oculus: sure one that gets a DK2 knows that DK means Developer Kit, thanks for the tip anyway, my point is that the consumer version is rumoured to be 1080p, the same resolution than the DK, hence the relevance of talking of DK2 resolution. Whiting Field: 1 of the 2 US Navy flight schools, candidates go through basic IFR ground training on a cockpit w/o any outside visuals. Pretty much a benchmark when developing a sim. Rolling decks: a "basic need" for any F18 sim, way more important for instance than fully modelling pellets of cluster bombs in the A10. From a commercial perspective, goes w/o saying that a carrier is a "zero-day need" for F18s. From a modelling perspective, it's damn easy to do introduce a rolling factor (like heading and speed), I am not talking of modelling waves to create a rolling movement of the 3d carrier model, that would be an overkill for a flight simulator such as DCS. MSFS porting civilian airplanes: 1) By its very nature, an OP coming from an outsider (me) is always ignorant of the technicalities of software development. It doesn't bother me a second: user experience, content is what sells and that's on that I am focusing when pointing to reducing development cycle (i.e. keeping user rates) and increasing the library of units (be it AI or user-controlled). 2) I was pointing to the elephant in the room that there's a huge market potential just by getting 3d models and basic functionalities of MSFS civilian quality add-ons on a first phase (like FC3 was for the current Su-27). Of course licences would have to be bought, yet my point is that it's a quick way of adding content and opening DCS to a larger (and corporate) market. I assume this is a positive for the survival of DCS. 3) Of course most MSFS add-ons are not A10 quality (aside e.g. Airbus and Boeing series), still for some it would be surely better than most units we have had for so many years in FC3 (e.g. Su27, F15), and which gathered a ton of users. And yes, hardcore simmers and professionals can always use the existing DCS realistic models in the meantime, everyone would be happy in a single platform. This is not a problem unless you are talking of putting 2 users head to head with fighters of different build complexity which would be a disadvantage for the matching (as it is already the case between some current models). On my idea, this is not a problem because I was talking of porting civilian airplanes, they will never be a problem for any (simple or complex) fighter. 4) I can go further (or back sort of): on a first phase, let's have simply a huge AI civilian library with ATC interaction, no need to have user-controlled civil airplanes. It simply adds to immersion. 5) Globe projection is a huge buck potential for ED just by licensing it to developers, surely it can be a priority if they have teams interested in doing it (and users). Prepar3d is much more than and probably too complex to be the sucessor of MSFS on the category of home computer sim. Lockheed advertises it as ultra realistic multi platform (sea, air, land units) targeting professionals (rescue teams, pilots...). I am may be wrong on this, after all their air units may very well suit MSFS hardcore users.

Hi guys, First of all, huge thanks to the developer's community (for the top quality sims and updates) and to the users (that make these forums alive every day). I have a ton of ideas to improve this sim, today I focus on 3 of them: 1 easy-kill, 1 medium and 1 long-term: - easy kill: the option to have pure IFR navigation by blacking out external views. I know you can simulate it with pitch dark weather / night time, but in some situations it's easier to have an easy switch (for example to focus on some sections of the flight). This is what they do at Whiting Field. - medium kill: rolling deck: effect of waves on carrier decks (good timing of the launches + messing ILS alignements during landings). Pretty sure someone already came up with this idea, it's a basic need for naval ops. - long-term: developing civil airplanes and port existing map addons from MSFS. Obvious rationale: huge market (largest # users), MSFS is outdated (graphics and options) and there is no replacement in view (I don't believe it's a product too mature), tankers and AWACS are a cross-product easily includable on DCS (for the C on DCS), once you implement round world's mapping you can use low-def maps for letting users cruise around w/o much caring for map resolution (while waiting for high res maps to come out), and you can develop your corporate client side of the business. Of course, the big thing would be to be able to port existing high quality addons (flight models and cockpit) into DCS. I have no clue how hard this would be. An additional point which is beyond your direct reach, yet it's highly synergetic with the DCS market: have you talked / lobbied Oculus to get 4K def on their products? I have the DK2 and 1080p is a huge disappointment (I mean HUD reading, not even talking about spotting anything outside the cockpit). Thanks, Strikor

A solid single and multi-screen management tool A solid single and multi-screen management tool - Be able to set up different outputs (instruments, HUD, MFD, map, external views...) for each screen in a single / multi-screen configuration. Example 1: 3 screens: 1 for instruments, 1 HUD, 1 MFD; Example 2: 1 screen split HUD in top tier, then 3 boxes with MFD, map and instruments. The current 3 screen configuration not flexible enough to manage different outputs - No need to manually change config files - Manage different resolutions for each screen - Include touch screens (this may actually be owned by hardware driver itself, not the DCS software) - Be able to cap frame rates in specific screens to save GPU power - Be compatible with Oculus Rift - Be compatible with 3D projectors (3D image) Would appreciate your comments.