Aluminum Donkey

Ok, I know there are faster used cards out there but I got a 3070 today. So far it's a screamer in just about everything compared to the 1080 Ti, although reviews and such claim otherwise. It's really nice! Unfortunately I can't log in to DCS! I updated to 2.8, and it won't let me log in. Error, cannot find saved login (500) or something like that. Looks like it's gonna take some muffing around. Oh well... AD

Greetings everyone, My 1080 Ti (11GB) packed it in on me a while back, and I'm wondering if anyone has luck with the RTX 3070 (8GB). I like to run DCS at 60 FPS constant, and have all the graphics detail maxed out. The 1080 Ti was barely capable, but did the trick. The 3070 looks much more capable (5888 CUDA cores!), but has 3GB less memory. The memory is fast though, it's GDDR6 with almost the same bandwidth as the 1080 Ti. I'm running a single screen at 2560 x 1440. I don't want to have issues with stuttering due to insufficient VRAM. Does 8GB seem like enough? I guess I could just buy it and try, but I'd still like to hear from other people using these rather powerful cards with 8GB. Thanks! AD

Good luck getting any sleep with all those crazy mofos flying MiG-29s up and down the street all day and night AD

RTX 3080 Ti is an absolute monster. If that doesn't do it, nothing will. Enjoy your crazy electric bill and stifling-hot gaming room AD

Thing about DCS is that even beast GPUs are really marginal. No, I wouldn't expect good performance from a 1080 Ti while running 3440 x 1440. It's decent for 2560 x 1440, but not 3440. If you're going to go with a higher resolution than 2560 x 1440, you'll need a much heftier graphics card, maybe an RTX 3080 or better--IF you can find one, much less afford it AD

Looks good except for the graphics card, the GTX 1080 is pretty marginal for DCS. It's not half bad, but I wouldn't call it mid-range. By today's standards, a 1080 Ti (11GB) can be considered mid-range for DCS. AD

This is a TERRIBLE time to buy computer hardware, especially just for gaming. The new CPUs and motherboards look decently priced, but graphics cards and DDR5 prices are beyond insane. My trusty old GTX 1080 Ti just crapped out a couple months ago, so I'm not flying any DCS for a VERY long time now--possibly many years, if at all. Big waste of money for the software, but I certainly am not in a position to drop $2,000 just for a graphics card! Just use your old hardware, the new stuff is ridiculously expensive for what this stuff is--it's just consumer products for entertainment. AD

I'm still think 2.7 is down-scaling the resolution as you get closer to the horizon, making things look chunky with MSAA. I'm sure there's a workaround, I just haven't stumbled across it yet. Until then it's SSAA. AD

It's not a patch, it's already in the sim and always has been. Options==> Special==> Ka-50==> Customized Cockpit AD

That sounds all right. I get better framerates with MSAA 2x, or even 4x, than I do with SSAA 1.5. But, the MSAA options give me 'chunky' clouds and blocky features near the horizon, and that sucks. MSAA 4x actually does a better job of removing the crawlies from ground features than SSAA, which is what I want--but, the chunkies suck. Hooted if you do, hooted if you don't AD

SSAA *and* MSAA on a 4K display? Are you getting 13 FPS with an RTX 3090? Kidding aside, DCS 2.7 seems to drastically reduce graphical detail as you look closer to the horizon. This means that near cities, airports etc. the "crawling" effect on edges of roads, buildings etc. gets really, really bad no matter what your display resolution is. It seems to be a desperate attempt to claw and scratch for higher framerates. I use a 2560 x 1440 display and the crawling is awful without MSAA. It really sucks, because everything else looks so good now and runs well even on my older rig (spex 'n sig) and on the few occasions I actually fly a mission in DCS anymore, it's a distracting drag. I'm certainly glad they fixed the yellow/black flashing bug and the propeller flickering, though. That *really* sucked. Unfortunately, the smoke/fire effect flashing & glitching seems to be back, and firing cannons at ground targets or using cluster bombs is giving atrocious framerate drops again. It's how DCS has always been-fix one thing, break a few others AD

You're asking a bunch of stuff the answers to which are probably classified out the wazoo, so if anyone on this gaming forum could answer them with any meaningful accuracy, they'd probably have to kill you afterward DCS World is for the entertainment of the unwashed masses. It's safe to say that it's a pretty convincing representation of what you're up against when trying to fly a military aircraft, but worrying/speculating about how "accurate" it is, especially with regards to very fine, specific details, is little more than groping in the dark. GPS guided weapons such as a GBU-38 seem to get within a few meters of the targeted location most of the time when using the pod. That's probably all right for a game. Laser guided ones do better than that, which they certainly should, just as in real life. DCS is an absolutely insanely complex piece of software for a bloody video game, it's a convincing representation of military aircraft for those who will never fly the real thing never mind become intimately familiar with its systems, and it's an incomplete, buggy mess and probably always will be. But a military-grade training simulator, it is certainly not! AD

F/A-18 Hornet is highly recommended! The targeting pods are fun, it can use a wide variety of weapons, and it's modeled in great detail as far as systems go. Unlike the A-10, it doesn't fly like a slug and has great handling when it's light--but, it's not nimble or even supersonic when heavily loaded with weapons for A2G missions. Keep in mind that all these modules are a perpetual work-in-progress, but if you want to try your hand at a really cool module that shows what DCS systems modelling is capable of, check out the Hornet! The A-10C II is also a great module as far as systems and weapons go, but it flies like a lead cow AD

Airacobra, I had this exact thing happen, here was the only real fix for me: 1) un-install graphics driver with DDU 2) reboot and allow Windows Update to choose and install a graphics driver (if you have auto-updates disabled, then use Windows Update to select and install a graphics driver--don't download one and install it yourself!) 3) Reboot again, and install the newest Nvidia driver if you want over the old one, without using DDU (highly recommended.) Use a "clean install" in the graphics driver itself (check box.) 4) Reboot and try sim. There are only certain graphics drivers that can be installed first on a clean system. You have to use Windows Update to choose them for you--you can't just pick any one and expect it to always work right when you install it. Only after it has been installed can you then reboot and install the latest one on top of the old one (no DDU.) Worked well for me, my performance in DCS is now great! It was a stubborn booger to sort out, and this is how I did it. Remember: Use Windows Update to install the first driver after cleaning out your system with DDU, and THEN install the latest driver. AD Doing all that will drive you bananas. Check my previous post to see how to take care of it. AD

I don't use Geforce Experience, but I've had really good luck with 471.96. It runs great and has no crashes, and I got pretty used to crashing with 471.68! Highly recommended driver update! Just make sure you delete your fxo and metashaders 2 folders, as well as deleting your DirectX cache (in Disk Cleanup) after updating your graphics driver. It's just a good idea. Both Windows and DCS will re-generate the required files with the new driver. AD

I've noticed it with Mavericks as well, especially the IR Maverick. The IR version absolutely will not lock on anything. I wonder if it's something that somebody else has solved? C'mon ED, it's a big-time module, fix all this already! How hard could it be? AD

Anyone else finding it hard to locate much of anything with the pod? I find the display gives very poor contrast. Even in white or black mode it's almost impossible to find tanks etc. because the display is very washed out. Know issue? Work in progress? Thanks AD

I have my paging file (32 GB) on my NVMe drive as well. That probably helps. What graphics settings did you change to get a large improvement in FPS? AD

Probably, yes. The only way to find out for certain is to suck it and see, and if it doesn't solve the problem, you just burned through some cash. I'm only using 16GB RAM with an 11GB graphics card (1080 Ti) and performance is pretty good. I'm running a 2560 x 1440 single screen. If you try it, keep us posted, I wanna know how it goes AD

Just flying over the islands in general. Usually the biggest one. At 4x MSAA, or 1.5 SSAA (but not both) I usually get FPS numbers in the 30s. Switching SSAA off and using 2x MSAA I get numbers in the 50s, or high 40s low down and near heavily built-up areas. That's pretty nice, but I *really* like the fluid motion at 60 FPS! Marianas just has a heck of a lot of trees. They're pretty high-detail objects and, as such, are hard on framerates. AD

I'm just flying the Hornet around with no combat and few other units. RAM is 16 GB of 3000 MHz 15-15-15-35, two 8 GB modules. CPU is 4C/4T at 4.5 GHz. Asus Z170 mobo. Wake turbulence and mirrors are off. AD

I haven't a clue how he's getting a 1080 Ti to run Marianas at 50-60 FPS with MSAA at 4x! I have one, and I'm lucky to get half that with the same settings as him. It sucks. AD

I have a 1080 Ti and 471.41 works well for me in DCS and other games too. I'm using it with an i5-6600K (4C/T) at 4.5 GHz. A hefty computer like yours should chew through anything you throw at it, spit out the bones, and be hungry for more. Go ahead and give it a try! Keep in mind that your RTX 3090 is really new, and newer drivers may contain bug fixes and performance improvements for the newest and meatiest graphics cards, so it should definitely be worth it for you. If it doesn't work out, you can always go back to the one you're using now (always make sure you have a copy of your current driver just in case!) Peace and happy warfare AD

Ok, here's the no-BS answer: As a general rule, helicopters are a "handful of busy" compared to fixed-wing aircraft, no matter the type. You're dealing with a whole lot of different forces that really screw with each other whenever you make any sort of control input. One control input messes with more than just one axis of control--requiring other control inputs to deal with it. Losing altitude slowly? Raise collective, and you generate reaction torque requiring pedal input. Fly faster, and you generate translational lift, reduce collective to compensate and you change reaction torque, requiring pedal input. It's a whirlwind of messing about that takes a lot of getting used to. Cyclic roll input changes reaction torque as well--more pedalling around. So, yes, helicopters are very difficult to fly compared to airplanes. It's a whole different skill set, and the only similarity is the word "pilot". AD

Imagine this level of AI in an F1 racing simulator. It would be a multimillion-dollar demolition derby AD