Sharkh

I think there are some new effects in these videos whats not ingame yet but overall we can make the game almost look like this . In these footages the time of the day the weather and the camera angle is carefully set to achive the perfect lighting to create the best visuals and show DCS at its best. I am not sure but its also possible that these are also rendered replays. As I remember there used to be an option in DCS to render a replay for videomaking purposes frame by frame whats still used the ingame graphical engine but it made everything look a bit smooher compared to usual gameplay . It seems this options have been removed from the game but maybe they still use it internally creating their promo videos. I don't know for sure.

This is not a mainstream game . That would be probably the end if we would buy or don't buy DCS:3.0 because of good or bad reviews. Imagine the steam reviews of DCS if lets say if it would be a 60$ game with one full fidelity module an a single short campaign. I am pretty sure it would be mixed if not worse because this game is not mainstream but a lot of people who don't get this genre would probably still buy it then get disappointed /frustrated after they realize the fact this is not for everyone and need dedication to get anywhere . Beside the two hour refound period of steam would be probably enough for a cold start .:D

I am pretty sure there are enough people at ED with expertise in economy and bussiness management who know the exact numbers of their company so they probably won't charge for a montly sub or make DCS 3.0 B2P just because 100 people vote on this or that at this forum. Personally I think neither of those option would be better we currently have and it would just generate less income not more while also turning away a lot of potential customer who are new to this genre. I am almost sure this product and ED as a company are still in the bussiness exactly because they chose this bussiness model. I am trying hard but I can't imagine any other way what could work better with 100% confidence. This bussiness model and the developement process of DCS has flaws probably and its not perfect but It has been working for years as it seems. I doubt you we will "invent the wheel" here . I did not vote because I don't think any of those option would be the solution for anything but I find the least bad one is the "B2P DCS:3.0".

My first impression about this map is that its really detailed and looks wonderful and I really liked it when I have flown on it for about a couple of hours . I was really hyped about this map and when I bought it I did it exactly so I can get back in time to the era of these warbirds flying above England/France. I expected ED to make it as accurate as possible historically. But now I have read this discussion and it makes me a bit disappointed to read all these comments about its historical accuracy that it has modern areas that should not be there and that a parts of the map was probably modelled with the 80s map datas available. This map was advartised as a WW2 map with historically accurate assets and areas and I don't know how of these claims are right or wrong but the claim that a nuclear powerplant have been placed to somewhere where nothing should be there in this era sounds really weird especially that such technology was not even presented back than an sounds like a well know fact so its not that the map data was not available or something and makes me wonder if this is right how accurate is the rest? I know its not real life but these MAP dlcs are full price modules so personally I except accuracy just as much as from any other module. I know its in EA and its probably not so easy to cover such a huge area accurately so I hope that at least the "out of time" assets and locations will be removed/replaced and most of the more important areas will be represented as accurately as possible historically . offtopic: Where can I find cows at The Channel? :D PS. The level of detail is really great please don't let it degrade much during the optimization process . Thank you ED!

It works . I have just uninstalled everything with that.

I don't see too much difference in performance playing on Normandy compared to the rest DLC map. But I noticed that there are specific mission for specific aircrafts where those "huge and going high alt" smoke effetcs are presented (for the sake of D-day immersion I guess) and with those the performance drops a lot. Are you sure your FPS issues are not due to these custom missions and its visual effects? Have you tried the performance of Normandy with a custom mission built by yourself without these effects?

Thank you ! I have just planned to remove them one by one ingame. :D

Thanks. I might do that the next time. I am just sad that I should have done this every time in the past but I did not. It would be interesting to see how many hours I have spent flying each of my moduels now I have no idea. :D

I am not sure if all authentical but most of it looks like it.

Wait , so did they have changed the log feature? I used to loose all of my datas after reinstalls so I just stopped caring about my datas. While it would have been really nice to know how many hours I have had with each of my modules. Are these datas stored in a cloud now?

Thank you all for the help!

Just as others said its only the FOV setting. You probably used to arcade racers playing with 90+ fovs. on flat 16:9 screen realistic fov setting should be about 40(depending on screen size and your view distance) and than you will loose the speed perception due to you won't have peripheral vision with this realistic setting on a wide screen. Just buy VR or use a 32:9 screen because its the only "partial" solution for this problem. I wonder if you use head tracking because with head tracking the speed perception gets a bit better so I don't feel I am slow while playing in 16:9. I just have to look around more to feel it. Btw In those example video in the OP . It is clearly visible that the DCS footage use much lower fov. If you don't believe that than just ask someone to drive fast while you are on the front passenger seat in a forest road and hold two bigger flat surface on both side of your head in paralel with the road to prevent any periperal vision. Our vision is like that on a flat screen with realistic fov setting . So it can't be fixed because its not a graphical issue of DCS but the "limitation" of flat screens .

The "Snapview saving" is already enabled so I have created the "View" folder and copied the file to there and renamed to "snapviews.lua". But I have checked content of this file and it seems it contains only setting for a few aircraft like Mig-29, KA-50, Su-27. What should I do so new entries will be created for the aircrafts I use? Do I have to enter these new datas manually with notepad?

Hmm... I don't have the "View" directory under "%Userprofile%\Saved Games\DCS\Config" . I have only two subdirectory there "Input" and "OptionsPresets". (I am using the beta so I am not sure if the location should be the same or its different) @Art-J Thank you! Its good to know but I don't have that module yet. :D

Hello, So I have just started to play WW2 more extensively again and realized that while flying the Axis warbirds the seat postion has a slight offset to the right side to make it allign better with the targeting hud better I guess. I would like it if the default seat position would be the perfect center of the cockpit. I know in the .lua files a lot of things can be customized so I wondered witch .lua file at what lines should I edit to customize the default seat postion so on bind "Cockpit postion Normal" command it will be reseted back to that setting. Thanks for the help in advance.