Czar66

iPhone you mean? No. Nothing about the cellphone market was deemed as mature in the 2000s. It was the opposite. Quarterly you had products being released that shook the market as a whole. But that's nothing like the sim market. Majority if not all products today are built faster and with higher quality that what it was released 10-15 years ago. There isn't anything 'nimble' about the simulation market. For quick fun, there are current a few sim-lite titles that are much easier to patch and to grow in assets, but that's about it. I prefer to be content about the things already out for use and purchase and the reality of what's the current status pro's are. If I'm annoyed I take a break and come back fresh rather than burning out myself on something I have zero control over as a customer. The change I'd like to see is a reduction of the tribalism present in such heavy demanding product genre, especially when things go wrong between parties, with such complex assets that even intimidates any customer coming from no experience let alone building sims like this. I believe we have distinct perspectives and I respect that. I have nothing more to add. Best wishes.

The problem is that you're comparing current sims with something out of your imagination. If everyone thought like this, there would be no Falcon 1, 2, 3... Flanker, Lock on...etc, because no one would buy them. You can't beat imagination, because it doesn't rely on real life practicalities. If some dev group could snatch the whole market at once from BMS, DCS and others, they would already have done so. DCS W have a ton of value for the majority of customers, or there would be no community growth throughout the last years. Demand rises as well as curiosity given the growth of content creators. Today this sim is much larger and with a lot more quality than when it has begun when the MiG-21 was the shinny new thing and the cutting edge of immersion and nowadays everyone is screaming for it to be updated.

I'd probably am an outlier in DCS. My time in DCS has been nearly 100% been in Briefing Room 3rd party application for mission generation with random parameters. Something done quick with minimal predictability to keep the memory going on my modules. I voted 'critical' because of that application. If it wasn't for Briefing Room, I'd vote for 'none' or 'minimal' for those Playground like scenarios on User Files and I used to spent all the time in scenarios I have made for myself with mission editor. Community made liveries are also nice and if it wasn't for them, some modules would feel incomplete. F-14A from HB doesn't have Jolly Rogers skin from the 70s as an example.

Now that's the answer. Thanks!

Ok. So it is about resolution. So the SE wasn't the first.

I don't understand. Is it solely on the resolution side?

Quick dumb question. How's is that different to the Hornet's and Viper's?

It is perfect for 1080p now. I hope ED makes options around HMDs symbology instead hopping around settings that are always incompatible with someone's system/preferences. The last patch fix was to fix this issue bellow (shot taken 19th of May 2025, before patch): Worked as intended and this issue ^^^^ for the whole HMD display is no more on 1080p. Please ED, testers, CMs, forward for the team to make options of symbology thickness or something related to the resolution of these displays as people are having issues instead of rolling back an returning to the degraded status for 1080p. The HMD was not like this prior to 2025. Placebo perhaps. The HUD it is just as sharp as before. Shot taken 22nd of May 2025 (after patch)

Yeah, pretty, marvelous, outstanding. That's for the free High Fidelity Su-25A. No clicky switches in the cockpit or deep systems integrated. I was referring prior to full fidelity as they take longer to make.

That would be sublime. I would be happier with a Su-27, though. Edit: But nothing beats getting the F-15E back into development...

Fixed a typo there. So it is in bureaucrats hands. Up that bet to the next Redfor plane after the 29A or the Super Hornet.

Words from community managers are in this thread + others talking about it.

Why are you posting this on wishlist? They are planned already. "Planned Iraq North Features during Early Access: H2 and H3 airbases to support Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom Improved roads Haditha and Mosul dams Oil fields Continued refinement of 3D object placement to ground texture" At:

RCtrl + Pause

I was replying to exactly for the BVR claim. Read your comment that I replied to.

...and great visuals for a nitendo 64 esque throwback low poly sim for today. We... The SIM needs variety in models, especially updated visual wise. The current 135 is showing its age very quickly. I'd love to see something from CH to this regard. I'm a bit tired as well on sorting MPRS and non MPRS to figure it out where I can refuel my plane whereas in real life 135 MPRS would be enough but in DCS there is some sort of limitation at servicing boom and basket on 1 model.

To add a bit more. Where you get the info that's not proper behavior? Hornet's velocity vector will re center horizontally in certain scenarios of high horizontal drift from the plane, IIRC, for better reading by the pilot. Note that other 'games' out there executes the HUD elements in a complete disregard to what they are in real life. Some removes completely the velocity vector from the ladder in lateral drift scenarios, others don't. Some worse examples out there too. Check this footage from this doc from the A-7 HUD. 3:27 link starts from the timestamp. The center line of the plane is indicated by the vertical line bellow the heading tape, in this case low portion of the HUD. Notice how the velocity vector and the ladder together deviates from it due to the cross wind component.

Like this?: You just experienced a cross wind component shown by the velocity vector. Page 90 from the F-16 manual. It features a typo which it should read item 13 instead of 14. But read the item 14 on that list. Welcome to modern jets. Crosswinds can get MUCH worse than this. The flight path marker/velocity vector can actually get out of the HUD area indicated by an 'X' or cross over it, which means its horizontal deviation is higher than indicated. (yeah, I should of have de clutter the hud. Close to 'RIP' but it was alright.)

You don't need to fully install DCS anew or finish the download on a new drive to do that. Just start the download process -> cancel/exit the download -> copy the old DCS files from another driver over the new ones (overwrite everything) -> resume installation by booting up either the installation file you got from the DCS site or the new shortcuts it just created. DCS is properly 'installed' as soon as the download begins. I hope it helps.

You have a VA monitor. Some of the deepest blacks out there. Anything above 0-0-0 rgb value, even by 1, will pop out. I had similar issue on a old VA monitor, now I only have IPS ones. I can't really 'see' the problem now, but I know what you're saying, I believe. Tip: You need to reduce gamma or crush some blacks for the banding to disappear. I dislike those VA screens but they are awesome to watch movies in a dark room. In the end, the banding will still be there but you can mitigate some. It is a problem inherent to the VA screens. I'd say, enjoy their strengths. Likely an IPS monitor or anything else but VA.

We've already posted last year on this very thread extensive tests. Reducing terrain textures doesn't mitigate the issue. Thanks.

It is safe to say it won't be a redfor heli because of the current restrictions on selling their helis in Russia.

Not a solution at all. Anything but high textures blur out the cockpits for the Huey and similar aged modules to a major degree that you can't read words on it. Heavier maps are fine on a 12gb VRam. New cards are coming with less than 12gb. Omitted optimization not on par with the rest of the products available. Needing more than 12gb of VRAM to be able to use older modules on the map in the economy today is NONSENSE. Especially if the map visuals are not the current benchmark. No way I'm buying a new card just for the VRAM and because a dev doesn't optimize their work. The issue is intermittent. It is not a RULE to saturate the VRAM just because of the map at every sortie. It is more or less a 50% chance. The map doesn't offer any visual quality above the rest to warrant such a bump of memory needed. It IS a bug. Anyone can make an asset that can bring any system to a crawl intentionally. Optimization needs to be accounted or it ends up in the bug category. 12gb VRAM + 64gb RAM and I can't put the textures on high on a single map. My ass... The "Textures" setting has been found the one to be changed. It is the setting that wrecks cockpit readability on old modules if it is not on high. The "Terrain Texures" will blur a bit the terrain BUT still not enough to make room.....or something else is broken outside of Vram usage. This can cause a lot of confusion. It IS the map, but changing "Terrain Textures" won't do much. I have Iraq. It is in its own way heavy near cities and have a lot of satellite imagery, but this issue doesn't occur at all.

In addition, you can move the active window between screens on a multi monitor setup with Win + LShift + Arrow keys . It is often handy.

I agree with this thread. It will only get worse from here if ED doesn't intervene in things like this. I doubt the RWR is even finished also. I can be wrong...