OnlyforDCS

Numpad * Forward Numpad - Back Thank you, thats what I was looking for!

If that is the case, then Eagle Dynamics have to be extra careful that the new map works with the exact same coordinates system as the old map. I suspect it won't be as simple as that.

Forget about the Kittyhawk. VEAO doesn't exactly have a stellar track record of keeping to release schedules. Im actually surprised that more people didnt choose the F14, since we know it's been in development for far longer than the Harrier, and one of the devs confirmed that it's coming this year.

I assume it's a simple matter of importing them into 2.5, unless there are major scripting differences in the different engines. If that is the case, and they have to build them from scratch, it might take a while for them to appear in 2.5 (Damn, I hope that doesn't cause an even bigger delay to 2.5)

I don't care whether it's historical or fictional, as long as it has period WWII units, and some bombers to shoot down or escort! :) It's time we took the fight to 25k+ altitudes.

Are we talking Early Access? Im nearly 100% it will be the Tomcat. At least the B version, probably without the carrier, but with a functional Jester and Multicrew. I think this is a safe bet, since Heatblur is the only developer that outright stated, barring serious disease or injury, the module will be released this year.

Trying this today after work. :)

What does that do? Does it move the in-game virtual head forwards and backwards?

Like the title says, Im having trouble setting up the track IR correctly in the 109K. It works pretty much perfectly in the Spitfire and the P51, which is probably due to the fact that they don't have a metal plate directly over the pilots head. Im actually fighting the Track IR more than I am an opponent in battle. Is there a way to set up my head position in the plane, so I can look up without ducking forward first? I use the Zoom function a lot, it's bound to one of the hats on my throttle. However no matter the Zoom setting my head is always located directly beneath the head plate. Some help with this would be greatly beneficial and would allow me to actually track an opponent during a fight, instead of just guessing where he might end up being. So, help? Please? :)

Then how do you explain that I could land the Spit like a boss in 1.5 but somehow I manage to FUBAR it on Normandy, like every single time? :megalol: Just joking. I imagine the dirt fields have different transverse friction values and I just have to get used to the visual cues on the new map :D

Peplum, currently version 2.1 is unoptimized, and needs a lot of hardware to run properly. There also appears to be a memory leak of some kind, though that is connected as much with system memory as it is with VRAM. These are all software problems though, that may or may not be fixed in the future. I would say that for DCS you want to get the best possible graphics card you can afford. If you can get a 6GB 1060GTX, go for it. However if you can save a little bit more and buy a 1070GTX that would be an even better choice. I would stay away from a 3GB version, as the textures and graphics settings in DCS seem to require at least 4GB to display at a proper quality level without a lot of FPS loss.

This. Take note that the only modules that have AFM/PFM coding have come from Eagle Dynamics & Belsimtek. ED have stated that EFM coding can come close, but since it's done from scratch by each third party developer it will take a lot of time, for it to get there. Cpt. Smiley is one of the most open developers out there (which fits Razbam's profile) and the plane in all of its iterations never felt "fake" in flight. Which means that the Mirage might be a bit of a brick right now, but at least it feels like a proper flying brick. :lol: I have no doubt in my mind that Razbam will get there. Maybe one or two other third parties too.

I'd say that 65% is too much, and that 85-90% would be just enough. But I agree with the sentiment and feel this is an excellent suggestion. I wonder how much work it would be though and weather it's feasible at this late stage of development.

Just to report back, I have a similar system except I run a GTX970. With these settings I was getting almost a rock solid 60FPS all over Normandy. The only difference is I run at MSAA OFF instead of x2, and I run with cockpit illumination ON, and visibility HIGH instead of ULTRA. It seems that shadows are the biggest culprit for low frames, or strange stutters. Still the cockpits look washed out and rather crap without the shadowing and illumination, so I turned them back up to MEDIUM and (Still FLAT on terrain). I can live with the lower frames, and hopefully some optimization is incoming.

Agreed Bignewy. Still feel that the dissapearing game is too easily acomplished when flying below cloud cover and over the patchwork fields. For example, the other day I was tangling with a Spitfire, and managed to score a couple of hits with a head on deflection shot. As he shot past me I assume he dived as I completely lost him. We were quite high too, at least 3 km up. I really wish servers would run some different conditions other than 12' o clock High Noon, as in those conditions I imagine it is probably very difficult to pick up a small aircraft against the ground clutter. Maybe just a little bit of extra contrast for the models would also go a long way. I will accept that this was a problem in real life too. I've heard that HDR off also improves spotting a little bit, depending on the angle etc? But Im loath to turn it off and test it as I really like it. Anyone test it? Also MSAA OFF or x2? I've been running with OFF since 1.5 as it blended distant dots into the background. But Im willing to take a performance hit if it improves spotting or at least doesn't ruin it.

Bookmarked for testing and comparison. I have a 970GTX, so it's nowhere near as powerful, but I will try similar settings. What does "flat shadows" in the cockpit do? I don't think I could live without shadows in the cockpit. I use flat shadows on the ground, and medium in cockpit. Also I run Anistropic at 16x and didn't notice any performance difference between that and OFF. Though textures look much nicer with it on.

People, what do you think about the visibility in 2.1? I've only flown the Normandy map so far in multiplayer in 2.1 and I think that it's quite improved from what we had in 1.5/2.0 I do think that some more tweaks might be required, due to the lighting engine. As the planes still seem to quite easily dissapear when against the ground at a certain distance. About 1-2 miles out. Thoughts?

This. It's still the official release version, and the only way to currently play on the Caucassus map. Even if it's coming out soontm Eagle Dynamics need to maintain it.

Bouma can you list your PC specs please? Thanks!

Also we didn't get a patch for either the release, beta or alpha versions every friday. Some fridays it was just a newsletter with some news tidbits, upcoming changes or sales. So it's not like they are beholden to release a patch every friday (or wednesday now).

Oh wow! Is this coming with today's update? My monitor has great contrast and good blacks, so I think Ill be pushing that baby down quite a bit. Is there a gamma "test" picture, like most other games have? You know, like a black and white symbol, where you adjust the gamma until it becomes barely visible?

I wouldn't get my hopes up that this is coming anytime soon. If they decide to do it, it won't happen well after the 2.5 merge.

Wouldn't they have mentioned performance improvements, had there been any? In the changelog I mean.

Of course it can. Just keep the speed up. (Translation: don't climb too hard)

Best news in ages! (Well apart from the Normandy release news :P ) BTW Happy friday everyone! :)