Aluminum Donkey

That's perfectly possible, DCS will run fine on much cheaper graphics cards than that. Decent visuals and framerates are entirely possible with a GTX 1070, although I wouldn't want to go with less than an 8GB card. AD

Erick, This sounds like it could be a monitor sync problem. -Enable G-Sync in NVCP, make sure it works right with G-Sync Demo (swinging pendulum.) -Turn ON VSync in NVCP (but leave it off in the sim itself.) -Turn OFF the Nvidia Ultra-Low Latency mode, to allow the sim to queue frames. This helps a lot for me, and works together with VSync On (in NVCP) to 'pace' frames smoothly. Don't use Low-Latency mode for flight sims because fluid motion is important. -Finally, make sure that the G-Sync minimum refresh rate is below the minimum FPS you'll encounter in the sim. Otherwise, G-Sync can turn itself on and off as the framerate changes, causing massive stuttering. Use Custom Resolution Utility (CRU) for this. Fire it up and see what happens. I've had this happen too and it's solvable. Oh yeah--make sure you go into Device Manager, select View (at the top) and select Show Hidden Devices. Then, click Monitors and delete any profiles for monitors you aren't using (they'll be light-colored, the active one will be full colored.) THEN, check the minimum G-Sync framerate in CRU. If it's 30Hz or thereabouts, you're good to go--unless the sim sometimes drops below 30 FPS, in which case you'll have to lower it to prevent monitor de-sync. AD

SLI sucks, and DCS isn't coded for it anyway. It only works in games/apps that are specifically written for it. So, don't bother with it. Just get one good card instead of two lesser ones and you'll have a good experience. The 1080 Ti is substantially better than the regular 1080 and it's still very good despite being old. Graphics cards have gotten good enough these days that SLI isn't really needed anyway. If you don't mind saving and burning the cash, the RTX 3090 (if you can find one!) is supposed to be mighty kickass. Don't bother with 20X0 cards, they were expensive and not much better than the previous generation. AD

I don't know how they do it, I start out with half fuel and give my wingmen full internal fuel and possibly an external tank as well. 5 minutes into a mission, "BINGO!" Then they eject. Any kind of orders given to wingmen are usually met with a response of "Unable." Sometimes they do follow orders, but usually just shrug them off. They almost always run out of gas anyway and bail out I guess it'll be a while before AI wingmen are more in the sim than just decorations. AD

It's perfectly realistic AI--if your country's Air Force is manned by drunk 5-year olds Usually when I issue any command to my wingmen I just get the usual rubbish: "2: Unable" "3: Unable" "4: Unable" And then they all call bingo and just eject I just have wingmen for the sake of the eye-candy in the sim. They're just about useless for actual missions AD

I'm soooo glad they did this man! It takes a lot of the pain out of setting up payloads. I wonder why they didn't do this years ago. AD

So, is it possible to actually have multi-role wingmen? Or are they only there for the designated mission type and can't do anything else? It wasn't a problem in 2.5.6, so am I right saying that 2.7 is fundamentally different and not just a clouds/graphics update, and it works differently, which is what causes they new bugs? AD

Ok, it might have something to do with the fact that my team is set to a Runway Attack mission, not SEAD or Ground Attack. They also refuse to go after aerial targets, even though they're also carrying A2A missiles. AD

I'm playing the 1989_OCA mission and I have equipped my wingman with HARM missiles. When the SAM site start showing up on my RWR as I get close to the target area (airbase with helicopters to blow up) and I order my wingman to "Engage Air Defenses", most of the time he says and does nothing. But, sometimes I get him to say "copy". After which, he just turns around and flies home without firing his HARMs! What's going on? AD

Just adjust it in-sim. Load a mission, press Esc, click Options and play with the system settings. You'll see the effect that adjusting the detail has on cities/infrastructure and forests. AD

I guess not eh

I'm using the rig described in my sig, with a 1080 Ti... I have forest distance set to 100%. Forest detail and Scenery detail are both at 50%, which I find gives good performance down low (where it's worst, about 45-50 FPS minimum) and Clouds are set to Standard. I don't find it makes much difference what I set Clouds to, though. Setting Draw Distance (not Forest Distance, the one for ground objects like buildings) has a great effect. I like it on Extreme, but my 1080 Ti is showing its age One plan is to reduce Draw Distance, and crank up Scenery Detail, but I really like Extreme Draw Distance. And frankly, it could stand to be MUCH longer--about twice as much. I'd need to edit the config files for that. And I'd get maybe 10 FPS I'd really love a 3090, but if I had that kind of bread I could buy a really crappy vehicle hehehehe AD

Nobody brought this up (it seems) but the new naming scheme for weapons in the ME is just awesome, now I can quickly get a clue as to what the 13,769 different weapons are instead of having to hunt through the encyclopedia Thanks so much for this ED! Peace AD

Looks pretty good on Low. They are, after all... Clouds Anyone gotten a handle on weird effects near the horizon? AD

Turns out that, when you find an area of the map that gives the lowest FPS, adjusting the 3 sliders (forest draw distance, forest detail, and scenery detail) allows you to scale the minimum FPS in real time So, find your lowest FPS, and then fiddle with these until you get the lowest FPS you're willing to deal with. I set the forest draw distance to max (always looks best), then set the detail levels so it still looks good and and I get good framerates AD

That's cool, thanks for posting! Looks like it doesn't make a huge difference, at least not on your beast system. I always thought it would be great to have less forest and building detail in the distance, but much longer draw distances. I should fiddle with this a wee bit. AD

If you're getting crashes on the second mission, do you have a fixed size paging file? That might be it. I had to drastically increase the size of my paging file to 32 GB. You could also try turning off the Disk Cache if you're using an Nvidia graphics card. AD

Wernst, DCS 2.7 is stable! I had constant crashes too until I removed my VRAM overclock. Sometimes even default clocks (both VRAM and GPU) on a graphics card are too high--they do that a lot because it's good marketing, but it just isn't stable. Before you give up on 2.7 make sure you try under-clocking both your VRAM and GPU a couple hundred MHz. Try it out and see if it's stable. Mine is now! Enjoy the goodness that is 2.7 and then sneak up on stable clocks. 2.7 runs great! Even at lower clocks you'll have better performance overall. AD Bignewy, When people get crashing, you should remember to advise them to try under-clocking their graphics cards, both VRAM and GPU. It usually doesn't take a lot, and this has saved my bacon numerous times after messing around chasing after constant crashes. Default clocks on graphics cards are often just too high. They benchmark great--and crash when a heavy load is put on them. It's something to keep in mind. Oh yeah, 2.7 rocks! AD

Ok everyone, Can confirm that it was my VRAM overclock that was causing the crashes in 2.7. Leaving it at default (11,200 MHz) solves it! I'm still running my GPU at a 65 MHz underclock. Running it at default caused crashing in 2.5.6, so that's where I left it. Maybe I'll try running it at default clock, about 2000 MHz. Card is a Zotac GTX 1080 Ti Amp Extreme Core Edition. If you keep getting crashes, try underclocking either VRAM or GPU (or both) and see if it helps! You can "chase" the highest feasible clocks later, once you get the sim running nicely. Looking good for me so far! AD

Your system looks pretty deadly compared to mine, and I have great performance. You might want to double check everything on your rig--clock speeds under load, that sort of deal. DCS 2.7 kicks ass. AD

...The only thing that seems to work for me is removing a +145 MHz VRAM overclock I had. I have a GTX 1080 Ti and I had to down-clock my GPU (the GPU itself, not VRAM) by about 65 MHz to get it stable in version 2.5.6. So, it seems now that the +145 MHz VRAM overclock on my graphics card is what was causing the crashing. Seems OK now at 0 overclock on VRAM, and -65 MHz on GPU. If 2.7 is causing you constant annoying crashes, try downclocking your card--either GPU, or VRAM, or possibly both. Try one at a time first, of course. Graphics cards are notorious for being heavily factory overclocked. Reducing this may solve your crashes. Peace and happy warfare AD

ED, Been fiddling around with 2.7 for a little while. I'm not a woman but if I was you'd be scrubbing my lipstick off your ass cheeks. Not only is the yellow/black flashing finally completely gone, but so is the WW2 propeller flashing, almost all of the stuttering, and various cloud shadow related lighting glitches. The flashing/glitching smoke trails from burning aircraft are gone too. Everything runs nice and smooth and performance is great even with all sorts of goodies turned on, even on my aging computer! This update is something that DCS has needed desperately for a very long time now. Kudos to all involved for a mighty fine job! Peace and happy warfare AD

That's as good an idea as any--since 2.7 is a major update, it's a good plan to wipe out fxo and metashaders2 and let DCS rebuild them from scratch. Also, SLI has never gotten along well with DCS. I just don't think DCS is coded to make use of it. If all else fails, disable one graphics card and try again. Also, check for excessive overclocking of GPU and VRAM, which can cause this too. OP, keep us posted, I'm curious how it works out for you. AD

Sounds like a killer system. If you're running your 4000 MHz RAM at only 3600, you can probably reduce the latencies by a clock or two and squeeze more performance out of it. You have some 'overhead' on tap because you're running it at below rated clock speed. AD

Damn straight man. Let them work on something REALLY cool without bogging them down with other BS expectations. The F-4 had it's uses, just like school buses and garbage trucks have their uses. There's a good reason for creating a flight *simulator*. If you wanna fly crusty, rusty old jet fighters with more mileage on them than the Space Shuttle, move to Canada and join our Air Force DCS Typhoon is the ONLY thing I've looked forward to in this sim for many years now, besides DCS F-22 Raptor. Everything else is just bug fixes and eye candy. AD