SeaW0lf

It looks like the pre-release DM that we were seeing was the official alpha, not just an internal / temporary version. Or are they going to work on another one from scratch? Minute 10:11. He clips both wings of a B-17 in a single short burst.

No problem, just keep in mind that I use TrackIR, which seems to demand 60fps all the time (I don't have experience with G-Sync). Mid 50s already gives me stutter. But once in a while I login without TrackIR just to set things up, and it looks smooth using the keyboard, but I never really tested, so the GTX 1060 might handle Normandy fine without TrackIR. The only problem is VRAM usage, since my card does not have enough VRAM (6GB) for Normandy with high settings.

Yeah, this is critical. Like In my last flight I was just behind a 109 and he vanished in front of me (300ydr perhaps). He could have made a turn and I would never see him again. Instead of washing out the terrain, I think it would be better to give contrast to the aircraft. Because the 1.5 version was too washed out, even near to the ground. Normandy is better on this regard. But lighting does not seem to be that hard to do. There are good solutions in the market and it is so nice when the aircraft makes a turn and its wings light up. The monitor by itself is a challenge (2D), but they can create ways to mitigate it and make it realistic. For some reason the approach of the game does not take into account the media involved (the monitor). It affects game play a great deal. I'm not used to WWII, but I spent years flying multiplayer in WWI aircraft (every day) and I know my way around in a map. DCS is like flying blind most of the time. And I see when other people are having the same problem because of the pattern of their flying. The dynamics are flip sided in multiplayer. It is all towards seeing something like we are flying in haze. But dots I could say is OK now. The problem is near sight / combat range. The rendering is too basic and might not take into account distances? I'm not sure. But it is off-balance a great deal. I hope so, because as it is the game (play) is unfortunately a dud. The impression is that they did not touch the way the near aircraft (with shape) is displayed from 1.5. It just gained a makeup with the new engine.

Is this a joke? So all this thread and all the things people are reporting and asking is a joke? I hope not, because we invest time and expectations and money in these things. If you belong in the category of wanting things to be harder than they are, fine, but there are people here who just wants to fly a simulator. After all the complaints it did not change much from 1.5 and this is disappointing to say the least.

So any news regarding a fix for the ghost planes against the terrain on the Normany map? Today I logged in and had two dogfights and I lost contact with the enemy three or four times against the terrain. Just like in the last flights that I did. All close dogfights. Like in a shallow dive with a 109 that fled, and I was following. As soon as we went under the horizon the guy just disappeared in front of my eyes. I just thought to myself: "What the..." I just kept going and further ahead I saw a contact go up the horizon a bit further than I imagined. But then the foe that I was chasing also went up against the sky and he was where I imagined it to be (if he had not turned). The other contact that confused me was a Spit. So I had two contacts in front of me and I did not see both, and the 109 was close. He appeared against the sky with clear shape and form and color. In one of the turns in my second dogfight (I was going up and he was going down), I looked down and followed his turn and the impression is that the render is much more faded than it is supposed to be. I thought to myself "I cannot take my eyes off him, or else I will not find him again". And I did happen to lose contact with him in a scissor. And then you need to graze the trees to find him against the sky. As I was over enemy territory, I just went home and never saw him again. And logged off from the server. It spoiled the fun, because I did not even started to train with these aircraft (just setting things up and playing around) and every dogfight is a lesson and exciting. The impression is that you need to focus and tunnel vision into an enemy and don't take your eyes off it (not advisable in combat), and still you often lose them anyway against the terrain -- and all this in a clear / spotless sky. Are they going to fix it? I've seen people asking for bigger labels and there are complaints against visibility in the forum, so is there improvements coming? Because the way it looks, it is not realistic and seems to be just like in 1.5. The impression is that the better contrast and render of the Normandy map helped matters when planes are against the sky or very near, but the chameleon / ghost aircrafts against the terrain persists. I know that some people like it for some reason [poor visibility], but this does not mean it is realistic (it is a simulator after all) or that everyone should bear the burden. I consider it a bug / development flaw. A metal 30X30 feet 7000lb aircraft cannot become a chameleon and disappear nearby unless you are flying in terrible weather. It should be a given.

Agreed. It is good to have a server to just practice.

Sorry for the delay, but I am a bit away from DCS. Before the Normandy I only flew at the 1.5 version, and the GTX 1060 6GB handles it pretty well (most things maxed out). I only have stutters around big cities, which might be due to bad optimization, because the card seldom goes above 50% at Burning Skies and my i7 does not even break a sweat. So the 1060 is more than enough for 2560X1080 running 1.5. I was maxed on the preload radius. With the Normandy map, is like running two 1.5 maps at the same time. I have preload at 6km and everything else on low but 2XAA and cockpit in medium, that sort of thing. I need to keep everything on a very basic setting. The game makes my GTX 1060 look like an old HD 6870. I hope they fix it, because it does not make much sense to bottleneck 6GB of VRAM in a 2560X1080 monitor. And the card hits 100% often, most of the time above 70%, so it is working a lot. You can search the forum because there are people with GTX 1080 Ti squeezing everything the card has to offer. Obviously not in my resolution, but from what I recall, Normandy seems to like some serious bling (top cards). Unless if you settle for 40-50fps. I can't, because I use TrackIR and I don't have G-Sync. I need to have 60 all the time. But I might be wrong. Maybe there is someone else here with a GTX 1060 flying Normandy.

I updated my RAM to 16GB (G-Skill 2400MHz) so I am good there. But I use TrackIR and I need to have my frame rate at 60fps. How's yours? Does your monitor have G-Sync?

Perhaps on a 27' monitor, because for me it did not change much from the 1.5. Same problem, same ghost planes when against the terrain. It did improve because the map has more contrast. The dots are better, the contrast of the map helps a lot (using deferred shading - the realist option with no blinders), the aircrafts seems to be better rendered, and it helps, but only if they are nearby or on your six. When doing scissors, it is easy to lose a plane. The other day I was watching a plane approach the airfield, and in one scissor I lost it. I found the shadow (mine is flat), but I could not find the plane. I was flying low. It just disappeared. I could look at the sun to calculate the position of the shadow to find him, but I just thought it was pointless. The other day I was jumped by a 109 and I did a slight scissor. He dove below me and disappeared against the terrain. I just saw him back when he came up on the horizon further on. In another occasion I was on a furball at the docs (maybe six planes) and it was a strain to keep track of planes. I mistook a damage plane with a smoke column from a blast afar -- smoke from damaged planes seems to move out of rhythm of things, like an animation of a biker that pedals faster than the bike moves (sort of). It creates an optical illusion. It was way worse on 1.5 (smoke from damaged planes), but it is still not realistic on 2.1. The problem persists as I see it. And it is not my settings or my monitor. I'm flying elsewhere with nice results. In fact I though these things (normal visibility) were a given.

I rather have collidable trees than nothing, but the OP makes a point. If there is a relatively easy way to reduce the box to mimic the outer branches and create a brushing sound when hitting them, even better. I don't think anyone hits the trees on purpose, but sometimes in a fight we need to scrape the trees, and that swishing sound is another piece of the puzzle that makes an enthusiastic simmer come back to fly time after time. In another world, when I used to brush the trees, it was always and amazing feeling like "I made it". Especially when the scrap was good and I won it :pilotfly: It may sound silly, but it is part of game play, contrary to some features that are simply visually pleasing, like wave caps, grass and such. But I heard the other day a swishing sound when grazing a tree in Normandy, so I am not sure how the box stands right now. Or I might be wrong, I am not sure. But just the sound is a good thing, even if the box is not reduced.

Yesterday I installed the 16GB of RAM (Vengeance). I managed to leave at 1600Mhz. but it did not improve much. It has an advantage over the 8GB 2400Mhz, but nothing big. I tested at Burning Skies. It only gets smooth at a certain altitude. My monitor doesn't have VSync and I use TrackIR (good only at 60fps). The use of VRAM is below 5GB and use of memory between 8-9GB. Still, I have stutter at sea level, sometimes heavy stutter (mid low 40s). The CPU is not even breaking a sweat. The GPU is running with high usage. I'm not considering missions with clouds or overcast, because it should get worse there. Nvidia control panel is in performance mode, but I left most of it on default. I might be able to change something, a game changer perhaps? I am not sure. But my GTX 1060 (more or less a GTX 980 with 6GB) is taking a heavy, heavy pounding. I would say bare minimum for DCS at the moment with lots of shimmering and stutters on the deck. I'll try overclocking my i7-3770K to 4.4Ghz to see if something changes. If I get in the mood I'll sell my memory to get 16GB of 2400Mhz RAM.

Do not get me wrong, but you're saying that the new DM will wait for future CPUs to be released and the gamers' base to replace their rigs for new decacore CPUs or something? In case yes, you are talking 2020 and beyond. For the topic in general, was it the first time that the information about the DM appeared in a newsletter? Because I had seen those screenshots before. Does it mean that the implementation will come later this year or in the first half of 2018 or will it be a WIP that can take years to implement? Because they've been working on it since 2012 so it seems. How long the Alpha and Beta does take? A year?

:helpsmilie: hahahaha! Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks, that's interesting. Maybe I'll try to bring down the visibility setting to see if it makes a difference. And if the quality (Nvidia setting) set to Performance does not skimp on the image with both textures at high (texture and terrain), it might do the trick.

Ok, now I lowered the Nvidia setting to Performance (was on default -- Quality) and it is getting 5.3GB with both Textures on high. Everything else I think is on default -- controlled by the game. Didn't fly yet with this setting. Let's see how it looks later today.

I agree. I need to fly more -- and the visibility improved --, but the initial impression is that aircraft contrast over terrain is still an issue, and I mean somewhat nearby aircraft or in dogfighting, like you mentioned. But like I said, I need to fly more.

Cool, good to know!

My ping is currently 284, but yesterday was 303 IIRC. I am not sure about my average but I am a bit skeptical about the ping thing (I'm bias I know). People stuttering on the map are mostly unrelated to ping, but poor / low connection. You can be in Europe and stutter like crazy on Burning Skies if your band is narrow. I have a 60GB connection (right now at 62GB average and 6GB upload) and I never had problems with stuttering in all the games that I played, differently than many people that were flying not that far from the server. I was usually one of the last to experience stutter when the server was a bit slow. The other aspect is that someone said that the player with high ping has an advantage, and this is not true. It is the opposite. Whoever is flying nearby or close to the server will have a lead over me in time (or anyone with a high ping), which translates into me looking back to an enemy turning with me and he will be in fact ahead in the turn that he / she is visually for me. I was shot many times in another sim when I thought that I had room to keep turning, or that I had space to maneuver without being shot. I have a video about it -- my plane being hit by bullets when the bullets were hitting air behind me -- almost 7m behind, the length of my plane, which was a lot. You adapt -- it is like facing planes that turn better than yours -- but people with higher ping are at the end of the stick in a dogfight. Anyway, I can't say much because the server is in Russia and you guys can't accommodate everyone. The problem is that people only fly at Burning Skies. No easterners playing DCS or people migrated for some reason?

Well, I found a setting that gives me 5.9GB of VRAM. I might even use Anisotropic filtering at 2X, but it is a fairly low setting. The only thing at high is texture and vis range at extreme (for spotting planes, right?). Terrain is at low, cockpit at 512 and so on so forth. I gotta test more.

Cool, that is nice :thumbup: Maybe today I'll swap the memory for 16GB and play a bit. I will try to post the Afterburner chart and settings.

Haha, I know! I have a 16GB Vengeance set that I need to swap. It is 1600Mhz RAM though and, from what I recall, I could not find a XMP profile (latest BIOS). Then either I run it at 1333Mhz or I have to spend time testing some timings. Let's see how it goes. I could also sell my G-Skill and buy a set of 2X8GB HyperX or Savage. I just don't want to have the trouble right now. But yours at 2560X1440 uses almost 7GB of VRAM if I'm not mistaken, which might confirm that mine is going above 6GB. Then I am not sure if I'll be able to set texture to high anyway. Lets see...

Yeah, with the 1.5 version the GTX 1060 does not go over 50% usage at Burning Skies (more like 30-40%), although it runs smooth -- other than over big cities when it stutters a lot (which also does not go over 50% usage). My impression is that Normandy is using the GPU to its fullest. Mine hovers above 80% most of the time, which is a good sign, because it is not a good sign when we have stutter and the card stays at 35%.

What is the resolution of your monitor?

That's promising. I'll try to swap my memory for the 16GB set today and I'll come back for a feedback.

Cool, I'll do it. Yes, I got preload radius down to 5-6k. No matter what I lower, texture in high seems to go beyond 6GB. And it does not seem to be buggy because it runs mostly like butter with texture in medium, no AA and some other settings compromised. It seems that texture in high takes VRAM to the roof. That would be a plus.