SeaW0lf

Right now I have to compromise my settings too much for my taste. I could live with lower settings and high texture, but medium texture has too much granulation, even with 4AA (that it can't handle right now). But I do hope though the map gets lighter. But my point is -- to use texture in high, which makes the game visually smooth and pretty, no matter if other settings are in low, a 6GB card might not handle even in Full HD because I don't know how much the game is using with 2560X1080. Although the 30% size of my monitor is a big chunk of pixels. But I'm saying this after a couple of days of experimenting. Time passes an medium texture might seem alright to me later on. Regarding the saved games folder, I just have to go there and rename it?

Yeah, I wonder if they can optimize that in the future. Seems a lot. Well, it handles the 1.5 version with flying colors, and DCS was already a game that required a "special" setup. And the general idea is that the GTX 1060 (somewhat like a GTX 980) is high level for 1080p, most definitely not midrange for 1080p. I know that my monitor is bigger, but this is unexpected. Like I said, I tested it with very low settings, no AA, no nothing, preload at 6k... AA is important, especially for who is playing with a GTX 980/1060. But texture is more important than AA from what I've seen. Too much granulation with texture in medium to my taste. I am OK with it because I bought the 1060 as a step to Volta. My GTX 770 was giving up already and I work with video, then any update is beneficial to me (saw a big improvement with the 1060). From what I experienced in the 1.5 version, I am kind of surprised that the map is bottlenecking a 6GB GPU.

Moderation can move the thread because I am not sure if it belongs, although it is solely specific to Normandy. I just want to give some feedback on my new card because many people might / will update their rigs with the Normandy release and the result of the update might be surprising -- in a bad way. Disclaimer: my monitor is 2560X1080, approximately 30% bigger than a normal 1920X1080 monitor and I am using 8GB of 2400Mhz RAM (*edit -- updated to 16GB 2400Mhz). The specs of my rig is at my signature. I was testing it in multiplayer at the WWII Server. So far I have not being able to set textures to max because it goes beyond 6GB of VRAM -- past the specs of my GPU :helpsmilie:, even if I set terrain to medium, no AA, preload at 6k, etc. So textures might be the determinant factor here. If I take textures down to medium, it hovers around 5GB, but even then I cannot go past 2AA without experiencing stutter and the GPU usage go beyond 90%, many times at 100%. With textures in medium and 2AA and some middle settings I have very little stuttering, even at ground level, most of the times running smooth like butter. But then my RAM most likely is a bottleneck. I have a set of 16GB being partially used in another computer and I'll try to switch today to see how it fares with 16GB. RAM usage is always around 8GB. Anyhow, texture and Normandy might be too much for the 1060, a card that is said to handle anything in 1080p. I reckon that my monitor is bigger, but it is not even a 2560X1440, a fairly common setup for today standards. Right now my brand new GTX 1060 6GB (GamingX) is looking like a rookie. I would rate it as an entry level card for Normandy in my rig. It might change, I might be doing something wrong, more RAM could change the scenario (not texture though), but I wanted to give the heads up to avoid some people buying this card thinking they will have some leeway to play with. It seems otherwise, but if you are considering buying it, exchange information with other users who have the same card. I am a bit slammed in work and might not be able to fully test the GPU or even swap my RAM memories to 16GB. This was unexpected to me though. Note that I am starting to enjoy the map.

As a feedback to other newbies, after a while I kind of suspected that I had to plug the G940 and set some things for the Input folder to show up. Now I got it. Perhaps tonight I'll fly on the map for the first time.

The DCS openalpha does not have an input folder, just the Config one. I did not change anything on Controls on the openalpha. Can I copy and paste the whole Input folder from 1.5 to 2.1?

It worked, thanks a lot!

Thanks, I'll do :thumbup: I'll come back to give a feedback.

OK, since I got no answer I went looking for the vcruntime140.dll file and I installed it. Now it is saying my system does not have an MSVCP140.dll file. Will this continue to happen for how many files? Os is this just a bug and I'll waste my time with this? Am I messing with my system (I'm pasting unknown files into my Windows folder)? Could someone explain me what's happening and what do I have to do to install the game? Like I said, DCS 2.0 installed and opened just fine.

I did a quick search and it seems to be installer failure that is not reading a file that is pretty basic. One of those C + 's that every game carries. I also read from people who downloaded it at Microsoft and the problem persisted. So I'd rather not mess with it. I work on my computer (I'm slammed in work) and I do not usually get out of the way for that kind of improvised fix because I need to have a system that is stable as it can get. And 2.0 was working fine, then it is something on the installer that is bugged. Maybe I'm missing something.

I tried to install three times, even deleted the folder (restarted) and every time that I try to complete the install it says my system is missing VCRUNTIME140.dll. I had no problems to install DCS 2.0 a couple days ago. It is the new version that is not opening. What gives? I have seen several people with problems to install. Is there a thread explaining what's happening? Any solution?

Oh, found it. Thanks :thumbup:

This is what I have in the [Config] Input folder. Did I miss something? Can I copy all the folders and paste at the 2.0 folder (which has the same content of the photo by the way)? I am not using the saved games tab (Win 7) because I don't know this feature. I am looking at the root folders.

I agree in part. You can always exploit the weakness of a DM, but it needs to have some balance. Hence why you could shoot down several bombers in one sortie back in the 90s. These things were not taken into account. It was point-and-shoot games. In today standards you could achieve a really nice balance. You need a strong multiplayer base (everyday people testing the game-play of it) and willingness to iron things out. The result could be very satisfying, and I say it from personal experience.

Cool, it is good to know. I don't mind if it comes half-developed during the beta, since it is a beta and we can't expect a fully developed product. Just to fly on the map will be fun. But it would be nice to see a mature DM for all modules when the map is officially released.

IMHO the P-47 is way more current in the today's DCS setting and the aircraft is not only legendary, but has some important WWII aces and has a large following in the sim community. It would not be my style of flying, but I would not mind to fly in formation or to be on the other side in a Bf 109.

She still has its wings firmly attached to her body. I don't see the point, but for sure it is not really a good example to justify how the DM is looking like. You can ask to have a fuel tank burst into the DM, but you sure can't ask for it to burst every time you hit the aircraft and call it a simulator. The way it looks you can shoot down as many B-17s as your ammo lasts. It reminds me of MCFS. I used to down five, six bombers in one box. Translate that to real life and no B-17 would ever come back from the other side of the Channel. But are you happy with the way the DM looks? To be able to shoot down several B-17s in one sortie?

I hope that this translates into a good / light interface for multiplayer.

I won't say much because I'm a newbie here and I could get ahead of myself :thumbup: but the topics that came out with the search will give you a general idea. It is basically it and you can research further on.

A very nice tip that I got from another forum. You can search the forum with this: any keywords you choose site:https://forums.eagle.ru/ The purple part has to come before the main URL. The orange part is the site at hand (can be any site, but in general does not work for subsections, just the main URL. But you can experiment). So you can search for: P-51D damage model site:https://forums.eagle.ru/ Changing the keywords a bit will give you other results. It is an easy way to search and it seems to give you way better results than the usual search engine in every site. You can also add quotation marks to a keyword so it will be highlighted. Or a group of keywords like "damage model", then it will search the two combined. The results may come out more specific.

Just as a feedback for those newbie's like myself downloading the DCS 2.0 in advance -- don't fret afterwards. I thought I had lost the 1.5 version because it loaded the game and asked for login information (mine was saved), the interface has a new background and the options like missions and multiplayer were grayed out since I only have the pre-purchased Normandy map. My first thought was -- great, now I'll have to uninstall it and install the 1.5 back on and loose my setup -- I have it saved, but for sure is a bit outdated. Then I remembered people mentioning to keep both versions installed and I went to check the folders. The 1.5 is still there and I can still access the old interface like I used before. It is a bit confusing I admit, like having two different games. I imagined the interface would remain the same with a tab for the 2.0 version. So don't fret!

Just to update from the other thread, a good example of what you are saying. On the a Bf 110 armed with cannons sprays a thunderstorm of bullets to the wings and body of this B-17. The wings appear to be in good shape after several cannon blasts, many at point blank, and debris flying all over. Sad image as I mentioned on the other thread, but it shows how thought it was. It might burst and break in very specific scenarios, but I imagine the footage that we see of bombers folding wings is mostly the result of flak, not fighters.

Exactly. There is a lot of ground to cover to merge "warbird" with "combat sim" in my opinion. At the moment I am more curious than anything.

I got the specs from Wikipedia, so it might be wrong (many times it is).

(1:27), which also carries 2×20 mm MG FF/M cannons -- fired a humongous amount of bullets to the wings of this B-17 (the whole aircraft for that matter), including at point blank. The wings seem to be in good shape. She might have gone down for engine / controls failure or the pilots were dead. It is a sad image to make a point with -- the last part is in many guncam's highlight reels. But one thing is for sure, this aircraft (and others I imagine) can take damage...

I think I read it right on the mark so it seems.