iLOVEwindmills

Just because they've said that it supports DX11 does not mean it explicitly requires it to run properly right? At least I can't see that stated in the thread start. It's not that uncommon anyway for DX versions to be optional.

Isn't it confirmed though that the new engine will benefit from multicore?

Totally, the sales they do are pretty awesome and make for great opportunities to jump in on things as a new player. I guess I was more aiming for a permanent easy entry into the game. Rather than 'wait for sale' to always be the best option. Plenty of time left for all of that though, we'll see what happens.

This, I think a lot of people are forgetting this factor. Fracturing the playerbase is a massive risk when releasing maps as DLC. Now for many people here it won't really matter as you will buy everything anyway and have no issues with compatability. It is important to realize that these people do not represent the majority, and are not where the money mostly comes from. If someone picks up any module right now, he can play online with everyone else as well as download and play any usermade missions. Hell, even with just the Su25T you still have full access to online servers without investing at all. Now imagine in the future when there's multiple maps, all of which you have to pay for. Suddenly somebody who discovers DCS and decides to purchase the Rafale finds that he is unable to join multiplayer servers because he does not have map X. Maybe he decides to buy it, the online mission switches to map Y and a message comes up "You do not own this map content, connection interrupted". In the same way, you will be significantly more restricted when looking for usermade content. It would be a massive obstacle when it comes to attracting new players into the game, as it will essentially force you to buy at the very least all the maps, in order to make proper use of the online part of the game. Either that or the servers would have to limit themselves to only running the free maps, in which case everybody loses. Either way you are raising the investment required in order to get into the game. Now clearly with just the NTTR terrain this wouldn't yet be a tremendous issue, but more maps are lined up and it's a problem that should ideally be tackled before it can start affecting the growth of the game.

I don't think there's an indicator that tells you how much is remaining in the droptank on its own. The main fuel gauge will however show the total fuel quantity, including the external tank. So you can quickly calculate how much external you have by subtracting your max internal capacity from the total. Additionally, there's a fuel warning indicator for your external tank on the information panel to the right of your main fuel gauge. I forgot exactly what it says, but it will initially start blinking as the tank is near empty and then light permanently as it is completely empty. So it's fairly easily recognizable. You can then drop the tank, and see it removed from the information panel behind the flightstick.

Ah well, it's good enough for me. It sounds like it would be a really fun aicraft, easily looking forward to this one the most out of everything coming up. Not too modern, not too old, like a 21 but with better radar and manoeuvrability. Does anybody perhaps have a loadout list for the C? Seems to be hard to find anything for the older 2000 variants.

Looking at these screens, were 2x530 and 2x550 the only air to air armament that was possible on the C? Does it not have more hardpoints for air to air?

It would be nice to see more capturable airfields, as well as more scattered targets. Such as that one mission where blue has to take out small clusters all along a mountain road? It means that things also become harder for fighters hunting them, since they won't all be concentrated.

This could be interesting, I'm taking it that this means moving them to forward airfields? It always worked as a good balance measure in 1946, giving incentive to fly the lower tier stuff without resorting to anything silly artificial. The 50/50 night time missions also significantly reduced its effectiveness so any buff would be nice.

Maybe it's only the late versions then? http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?91404-MiG-31-Questions/page3 Saw some interesting armament selections here. Tbh with just long range radar missile armament I don't think any aircraft would be terribly interesting in the long run.

Wouldn't a MiG31 be way more interesting than a 25? For as far as I can tell the 25 has a very limited armament selection mostly intended for bombers, and incapable of carrying a cannon. Flying it will be interesting for sure, but wat else can you do but fire long range missiles and then return to base? The 31 can carry a much wider and modern variety of air to air weapons, can have an on-board gun and is also a better counterweight to the F15 and upcoming F18.

So when it comes to strafing, is it normal that a BTR or a tank MG has a 50/50 chance of damaging my gun? It feels like I have to hose enemy units from an insane distance in order not to get critically damaged. And that's not even saying anything about BMP2/3. I have taken serious damage from these things while flying at 5000+ feet. If I don't manoeuvre constantly it feels like they are nearly 100% accurate. None of these units have specialized systems for tracking fast moving aerial targets, and surely they don't have equipment to compute firing solutions with radars etc. So how can a manually operated gun like that on a BTR or BMP lead a fast moving air target with such accuracy? Seriously, I wouldn't mind them trying to shoot me, but they are better at AA than shilkas are. Surely this is a bug right, will it be fixed?

It's probably also partly the issue that you cannot see the plane itself, only the smoke. Smoke would just be an issue with increased or decreased visibility. Now it turns you from a situation where you would normally be completely invisible, to visible for an attentive player.

No I run fullscreen always, GTX680, 3930k and 16gb ram. It certainly doesn't always suffer from poor fps, but it does definitely feel like its been more persistent when there is slowdown. I'll get a counter up next time to get a better idea of how much the fps is actually varying, but running with sub 30 is very noticeable.

So I haven't really been playing DCS for long enough to say anything with absolute certainty, but it feels like the lag has been way worse during the past few days. Before when it was running on the beta there were spikes of bad fps, but they tended to go away after a little bit of time. Now it feels like whenever the fps plummets it stays bad until the map switches, and you're stuck running at about 20fps for however long that takes. I thought it was maybe the player count, but the drop seems to happen too suddenly for that.

What I am curious about is the visibility of aircraft at slightly longer distances. Has there been any reported improvements on this in the new engine? Moving over to DCS from WW2 sims this is my single biggest issue with the current engine. Finding enemy aircraft without knowing exactly where to look + zoom feels like a near impossibility. Now in the Su27 or F15 that is one thing, but in aircraft like the Mig21 it is extremely problematic. I don't even want to imagine what the WW2 planes are like right now in this regard.

I think I even remembered taking off halfway through the ground alignment without serious issues, so yeah I don't think this aspect is modelled too well/at all. The only key system that lacks with an un-aligned nav seems the EAC, but there are probably more I'm not aware of. If I get around to learning GBU38s I'll see if any lacking accuracy is modelled.

Yeah, I fly mostly mp though, and since that can mean quite a few restarts due to interception and whatnot, I just like to be flying as much as possible. Since most of the checklist stuff I can do in flight, if I can align en route as well that works for me. The automatic 'cheat' quickstart is just a pain to use online due to the crazy amount of time it takes to do everything. And sitting through it 5 times in a session gets annoying, especially since you basically just have to go AFK while it does its thing. The whole reason I learned manual was to speed up the process as much as possible. For as far as I can tell, everything worked fine. Navigation seemed perfectly accurate, CCIP/Guns/CCRP as well as LGB and maverick all seemed to work flawless after in flight alignment. I'm really just wondering if there is anything that I'm overlooking, any disadvantage that is actually modelled into this alignment process. Btw, does it even really force you to fly it level? I assume that is the requirement in reality but it didn't give me any issues when I manoeuvred quite a bit during alignment.

Hi, I was wondering if there were any definite ingame disadvantages modelled to using the 'In flight' nav alignment as opposed to the ground based alignment? Currently I pretty much only use LGBs and Mavericks, along with some cluster munitions.