kronovan

Eye candy is trumped by good game play for me, so yes I can live with a number of settings on low. The bigger issue though, is that without decent ANISO and AA I find DCS suffers from a fair amount of shimmering. That I don't have in any of my other flight sims and I find it distracting and annoying.

I went ahead and enabled AA from within Nvidia Inspector with the following settings: 2x1 Supersampling, Mode=Override any application setting, Gamma Correction=on, Transparency Multisampling=enabled, FXAA=on. It's indeed a big improvement over the MSAA setting in DCS. I'm usually close to, or at 60 fps now and was able to increase shadows one notch and Tree Visibility to 60%. I don't know if I'm running the best mode of AA, but I figure the results were good enough for me to experiment with going to a 4x mode. Anyhow definitely playable now, so that was a very good suggestion. I tried increasing DCS's ANISO Filtering from 4x to 8x, but that brought back the occasional stutters when I pan with TrackIR. I'm considering overriding the DCS filtering from the Inspector and are curious if you've tried that as well and what your results were?

lol Neither do I, but I keep playing them none the less. :) Well the emphasis would have to be on the cheap, because with 2 kids in college I don't exactly have much of a gaming budget. I do have a nephew who's saavy with the 2nd hand PC market (he also custom built my PC) and we've talked about him sussing out a good GPU. So maybe that will happen this year. I do have Definite plans to upgrade to 16 GB RAM before the new year, but I doubt that would help much with DCS performance.

That's good feedback Rudel - thanx. I really haven't tried Nvidia aliasing or tweaking settings from within Inspector, so I will give that a bit of a go before I thrown in the towel. As I said, my PC is long-in-the-tooth: i5 2500 quad core @ 3.3, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, Geforce TX 680 w/2 GB, Win7 64, SATA 3 SSD . Old, but it does run BMS Falcon, FSX, IL-2 CloD Blitz, Elite Dangerous and Strike Fighters 2 with all the bells & whistles. Which is why I don't need DCS to be the bleeding edge edition of the engine - have lots of other sims to play.

I was playing up until about a year ago and I'm not sure what version it was - thought it was 2.0? I just reinstalled yesterday and the short of it, is I can no longer get satisfactory performance or visual quality with my long-in-the-tooth gaming rig with this new engine. Previously I was able to run at 1080p with settings above Medium (had normal shadows, 4x AA and a number of other settings one notch above the medium baseline) and could acheive FPS mostly in the high 50's, occasionally dipping into the mid 40's. Now my frame rate are as low as 30 if I run with those same settings. With some testing and tweaking, about the only setting I can run above the medium baseline is 2x AA and I have to reduce tree object down to 50%. That gives me FPS for the most part in the high 50s, but I now get these jarring stutters where I drop down into the 30's when I pan with TrackIR in certain situations. Fortunately I don't have too much of a $ investment in the game, only owning Flaming Cliffs 3 DLC. The biggest disappointment was after a few tests wit the CCIP on the A-10A, it still was broken. If that was fixed, I might consider sticking with the new engine, but that would be the only reason. Yes I know I could buy the A-10C, but I have too many other flightsims to warrant a purchase like that. The only other DLC that appeals to me is the F/A-18 as it's the only available aircraft for the game that my country actually flew. Disappointing I won't be able to fly it, but I'll live without it to be able to just play this game with some visual fidelity and decent performance. I really only want to play FC 3 in SP now, so I'm looking to roll back to an older edition of the engine. I'm running the Steam edition and what listed under the Beta tab is an experiment in confusion. There's "Final-1.5.8 -final 1.5x version", "openalpha - Public alpha versions (2.x)", "openbeta - Public beta versions" and "stable-1.5.6 - The last 1.5.6 version (old render eng...)" Not knowing what I was last running, I haven't got a clue if any of those would give me that back. If anyone could give any feedback on which version of the engine would be the correct one, I'd really appreciate it.

OK and many thanks for that. I suspected as much, hence my "global type of threat" comment. So it's probably the Shilka in that Insta-Action mission.

I tried the Hellaspilot's and VFA-113 Stingers mods, but I've crashed and burned on both attempts. I'm running with the FC3 DLC, if that matters. The first mod would allow me to fast create a an FA-18C mission, but other than the MPD's and HUD display, the rest of the cockpit was missing. I then tired the VFA-113 Stingers mod, but not being on DCS 2.0, I could no longer start DCS. Interesting enough, when I first installed the Stingers mod, I had forgotten to remove Hellaspilot's FA-18C.lua file from ..\Sciprts\Database\planes and DCS would successfully start. The HUD on the F-18A however was incorrectly overlayed above the HUD glass. The exercise did teach me about the Bazar folder, the db_description.lua and db_countries.lua files and how to create my own liveries folder under GameSaves, so I guess it wasn't all a loss - just frustrating. Anyhow...I'm wondering if there's some F-18 mod out there that will actually work under DCS 1.5 and that will let me use those RCAF Hornets skins?

Thanks for the reply. Well that's what I tried (main number keys) but no that doesn't work for the A-10A; works for the F-15C though. As was pointed out by another forum member in my other thread that I accidentally made in the F-15C forum; the A-10A automatically enables both the AIM-9M and gun funnel when Air-to-Air mode [6] is selected. The FC3 manual appears to errantly refer to procedures in the A-10A section that you'd use for another jet. The bigger problem though is the AIM-9M seeker reticule remaining fixed in the upper portion of the A-10A HUD - not sure it that's a feature or a bug?

To an extent I can live with the sighting limitation for modern theaters with all the sophisticated targeting that's available - gun on the A10-A is a real bitch though if you have to go up against airborne units. I can't imagine not having better visibility if playing in any WW II theater though. I currently play IL-2 CoD with all of the Team Fusion patches in place and I have far better visibility and don't have problems ID'ing aircraft at distance. Surely ED must be planning on fixing this before the release of their Normandy theater/map?

I thought of those, but the Vulcan is supposed to be designated by the symbol VU, the Shilka by 23 and the Gepard by GP. Unless the A is a global symbol for those types of units when they can't be accurately ID'd. I'm suspecting it's some other stationary early Cold War AAA, but I'm only guessing.

I see this symbol on the RWR the most often when flying the A-10A in Insta-action. It's display is almost always accompanied by a Mud Spike radio call, so I'm fairly certain it's some ground threat - also never has a caret symbol displayed a over it. "A" isn't listed in the table for threat types in the A-10A of FC3 manuals, so I'm wondering if it has a specific designation or if it represents some global type of threat?

Has there been any word from ED on when it's going to be fixed? As I stated above, I suspect it would have very little effect at the resolution I'm running at. But if the plan is to have it eventually effect the TVM display - hell yeah, that would benefit my game play.

Hmm...well with over 60 views and no replies, I"m guessing this is a mystery setting, or possibly one that's not that effective. ;) Anyhow...I did some more searching and found this earlier thread that discussed the setting when it only had the 3 options of "off", "normal" and "Enlarged". It now has the options of "off", "small", "medium" and "large". From what the other thread discusses, the effect only comes into play when models would only be 1 pixel in size on the screen; don't know it that's still the case, but apparently was then. I'm currently running at 1600x900; mostly due to having to run my desktop at that resolution (can't comfortably read text otherwise) which causes DCSW's options menu [OK] button to be placed off-screen and not selectable when I set the resolution to 1920x1080. From what was discussed in that earlier thread, at the resolution I'm running at I'm unlikely to have this effect come into play unless objects are many nm away - possibly not much different than real life in my case. It does read like there's no effect on the difficulty to hit or detect aircraft/vehicles with sensors. What I'm still wondering is if it has any effect on the A-10A's TVM display, because I'm having a heckuva time making out objects with it?

Am I wrong to assume that the Model Enlargement choice on the [Gameplay] tab of the Options menu, only makes the visual 3D models look larger? I ask because I'm playing on a HDTV in my den a good 6 feet away from my 40" screen, so if the setting just enlarges the look of models it could be helpful. I don't want to go anywhere near that setting though, if it does other things like enlarge the hit bubble, ease sensor detection, or anything else that significantly makes things easier.

Arrgh...you beat me to it before I could complete my post. :-D. Well that explains what I'm experiencing, but I have to ask why it's now that way? As I said in my above post, locking the seeker reticule in the top of the HUD can cause problems with energy management.