firmek

Check this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185826 The issue is that it's seems to be reported not working in MP. Don't know what is the status as for the moment.

I hope that I'm not confusing the server :). Assuming that not, please remove the view settings related to the cockpit view from the mission files. They override the user settings, including the FOV. If needed, the detailed description of the procedure can be found at the the end of this page: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views

+1. Really, there are already enough "all vs all" servers out there, actually so many that those with sides having dedicated native airframes are not so easy to find. Anyway, I agree with above, assigning the planes to both sides just because people were claiming that they'll not fly either side since their favorite module is not there doesn't seem to have any effect. On the other side it only waters the immersion IMO. Maybe we'll finally agree that nothing changes, people like to stack-up on the numbers. At the moment I'm sure everyone takes a decision about joining a side with full understanding of the consequences. I'll join blue to play a team with higher numbers or I like to play it the hard way and join red. The only way to address it would be to introduce system directly or indirectly (through number of lives) making the player numbers even. +1. This could even seem to be more natural. I mean having the interceptors closer to the front-line. I would even suggest to decrease the numbers of available slots to make every aircraft count: F-5/MiG-21 closest to the front, highest numbers of available slots. MiG-29/M-2000C further airbases, medium numbers and F-15C/Su-27 the least slots maybe even only in a single the most further airbases like Batumi/Krasnodar.

Quite an old post necromancy but since we've started. As far as I understand the newest Russian aircraft that we can get will be probably MiG-23 and still it's a speculation if it's going to be a project and who would make it. Having MiG-29 would not only be great by itself but basically DCS strives for any modern fully fidelity Russian aircraft. A good starting point however should be ED clearing the AI database as it's not possible in mission editor to select MiG-29 for countries that had or even still are operating MiG-29. Now, there are a lot of really great looking Russian aircafts, but SMT: (sorry, couldn't resist)

I think you misunderstood the word "balance" in context of this discussion. It's not about "balancing" a multiplier game by giving both sides an equal chance. As you say DCS is about a simulation. It does a great, actually the best job as for simulating a specific airframes. If you look however from a wider perspective, what makes a real simulation is the complete environment. At the end, the all great fidelity of a specific plane quickly diminishes if we can't put it into a realistic scenario, historical context and fly against an opposition that it had to deal with in real life. In this respect seems that the modules development could be more coordinated and synchronized towards complete theaters. Using a race car simulator analogy - if you want to feel like a Formula 1 driver, I guess getting an fully fidelity Formula 1 car module will not give you a complete experience. You want to race other Formula 1 cars and race them on a Formula 1 race track in a Formula 1 sezon. Or maybe it's enough to have a Formula-1 car module but race it with monster trucks on a rally car section in a touring car championship? Yes, that's exaggerated but quite often could serve as an illustration of the current DCS MP scene (and ability to setup SP missions). To continue however on the original post. To be fair it should be said that the Bf-109K and Fw 190 were done before probably there were any plans for Normandy. With the current state of the arts however, even considering that the axis modules are from the end of WWII period IMO DCS is more in a need of other modules and especially AI units. The last probably don't have to come in such a great quality as WWII assets pack. Going on quantity route instead of superb quality would be probably an better choice for AI. After all, after an initial "wow" moment when admiring the AI models with F2/F7 views, AI units end up to fill in the battlefield in order to create an immersion and serve as a “cannon-fodder”. During engagements I guess most of us don’t have time nor are close enough to admire the details.

I'm running a 1070 so for sure not close to 1080Ti. After playing a lot with the settings in a recent version I can get a good performance for both NTTR and Normandy. 1) Deferred shading - with PBR DCS looks just great, though it comes with a huge performance hit. Still it's manageable to run DCS with it 2) Turn off the antialiasing in game - even 2x makes a substantial impact 3) Anisotropic filtering - can be set to 16x. I didn't see much of a performance difference in last version 4) Turn down the AI traffic, possibly to Low or Off 5) Setting a Tree and grass Visibility makes a huge impact, especially on Normandy. I can run ok with it using (if I recall correctly) 8000 for trees and 800 for grass. 6) Preload radius - actually can be increased on systems with high RAM. Helps to remove stutters. 7) Turn off the depth of field settings 8 ) All other settings I generally run on "High" - as by loading "High" preset for all of the options. 9) Settings in NVIDIA control panel - separate topic. All anti-aliasing settings set to be used as in-game. With those settings in 3440x1440 I can get 40 FPS while in Spit on the ground and over 100 when in air. No stability or stuttering issues.

At first I thought that it can't be true and maybe there is some confusion. Then I found this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=190523&page=5 WOW... cant find words to describe it... Thanks anyway for the heads up!

IMO, it's rather opposite, widescreen is also great for FPS. Lets you to see more. After a while 16:9 feels like a tunnel vision. Up to you though :) As for other questions: - TN should not be an issue for TIR. You're in front of the monitor and viewing angles are not large enough to get affected by the problem. - G-sync, works fine with jumping FPS rate. That's one of it's strongest advantage over V-Sync. Plus obviously no input lag which is a no-go for FPS - since you play it but also makes a head movement with TIR much more responsive. - personally if I would by a quality monitor with TN I would go with 8 bit panel. From reviews it seems to make a difference. Though I don't have direct experience as I've went for IPS - IPS is great but don't take me for an IPS maniac :). Quality TN has it's advantages but the color reproduction of IPS makes a big difference. Obviously IPS comes with it's issues like back-light bled but unless running a poor panel it shouldn't be noticeable in every day use. I don't have any issues with ghosting. From those you've listed I would go for PG278QR or if you can spend more for IPS PG279Q. After reading tons of reviews I almost bought the PG278Q, then changed my mind to squeeze the wallet more for some extra cash and get PG279Q due to its IPS. Then decided to make my wallet cry and got Acer X34. I'm really happy that I did that :)

Sorry if it has been already answered but I've been away for a while from DCS. After updating the 1.5 the mod causes an IC error. I've also tried to uzip the files which also used to work some time but now it isn't. Did something change? Are the ground mods now supported by the "saved games folder"?

Get a widescreen monitor. Something like ACER x34. Added peripherial view makes a real diifference in DCS. Plus its IPS, 100hz and has G-sync - which is one of those things that you never want to go back once you get used to it.

Yeap, why not. I could already imagine... PILOT: request taxi to runway ATC: taxi runway 6.. hold on, come back now! You forgot to take out the trashes. or PILOT: request bogey dope AWACS: not today honey, I have a headache. But serioiusly. I remember two campaigns with female voices - the museum relic and M-2000C stock campaign. Was a great addition. Something to consider however would be that it might be more nautural to hear female voice in western airforces rathern than in eastern. It should be be done in a way that adds to the environment rather than impacting the immersion by fealing not in place.

Well, let's keep the fingers crossed and wait for some info then. I did a quick check, it seems that there aren't many airports to the south of current map and including them would require expending the map quite substantially.

The NTTR and Normandy look just amazing, can't wait for the new Caucasus map. However, aside of the eye-candies is there any information on the map topology itself? What I mean is: 1. Size of the map, is it going to remain the same or is there a plan to expand it? 2. Cities reproduction. To some extend being quite generic today - for example compare real Poti area with the one currently in-game. 3. Timeline. For example the Novorossiysk airport doesn't exist anymore. Marneuli AB is missing on the map.

Yes, correct :thumbup:

Interesting read QuinGon :thumbup: One slight comment is that, I didn't test it recently but the INS alignment wasn't working correctly in M2000 but the Viggen could be used as a good illustration.

It's probably a subjective thing but I find it toally opposite. Due to being a jet planes I find the F-86F and MiG-15 much easier to fly than WW2 fighters. Mostly due to lack of engine torgue effects and much easier engine management. Take-off, landigs and even the ground handling itself is much easier than in tail draggers. On the other hand I agree that the popularity might be an issue. 1'st gen jets are kind of in a grey area. Most peple will rather go for WW2 as its the most iconic for dog-fighting or at least the 3'rd of 4'nd gen jets for modern air tactics.

With MiG-15 already in place and MiG-19 in active development, MiG-17 would be a great addition. Hell, though it's a big speculaiton some gut fealing tells me we'll see a MiG-23 at some point of time. The problem though is that due to lack of the proper environemnt from the era - AI air units, ground units, map there is currently not much to do with MiG-15. I'm affraid about the same will be the case with MiG-19 and even more would be with MiG-17. It would end up as orphant module without an proper environment and competitors to fly against. IMHO would be great to see some strategy for consistent module - theater development. Approach taken with Normandy, plane modules and WWII asset pack seem to show some light in the tunnel.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the DCS maps are flat which means that we have to apply a medieval physics which drives to the conclusion that the strip of land is there to keep the water flowing away from the ocean and ships falling out from the edge of the world into the void. A schematic illustration of the problem that had to be dealt with:

Thanks for the info. Aside of WWII bombers there is nothing new. Specifically, setting up any mission with bombers for Korea or Vietnam era is a big issue at the moment.

First it would be great to get a consistent set of bombers AI units implemented in DCS. At the moment the situation with heavies for a mission designers is a small disaster. DCS desparetelly needs more AI bombers like B-26, B-29, B-36, B-47, ealier versions of B-52 (F), B-57, Tu-4, working Tu-95 which could actually drop the bombs, and probably many more. They don't have to be a quality of the WWII assets pack.

Probably my English ;). The question was related to the period of time that the map will model. I assume early 2000's but it's just a guess.

Was it annouced what is the date at which the map is set?

+1 aside of the fact that with a number of modules, assets pack and a dedicated map, ironically WWII probably has the most coherent representation at the moment in DCS. As for Korea, there is literally close to 0 content. Just go to mission editor and try to setup anything that would be close to 50's scenario. Aside of 2, or even counting P-51 in, 3 modules there is nothing as for AI units. No bombers, other fighters, strikers, almost no ground units. I remember playing on a server with a scramble mission to intercept the AI bombers. The first impression was - WOW, can't belive they've made it. I was really impressed seeing a stike group of "bombers" approaching far away. Eventually, once getting close enough to visually id the enemy, it occured that the "bombers" are actually a C-130's. I mean, I really appreciate someone taking an effort to setup a server, mission and do all of the scripting to make it work but seeing those C-130 used to simulate B-29's quickly put all the immersoin down the drain and remembered me about the sober fact that DCS is a "sandbox". F-86 and MiG-15 are not the only one examples of great - fully fidelity modules without a simulation of environment in which they flew. PS: For single player don't forget the "Museum relic" which is a great campaign.

My suggestion would be: Processor: Go with i5. Based on a really quick price lookup it seems that i7-6700K is 50% more expensive than i5-7600K. Unless you have an unlimited budget it's a waste of money IMO. If you have that cash, invest it into any other component like GPU for much more price/performance gain. GPU: Try to save up at least for GTX 1070. That would be IMHO the first priority. From a longer time perspective a GPU will be the first thing to age and start bottlenecking the system. You’ll get around with not so fresh processor but GPU you should get as best as you can as it’s the fastest aging component. RAM 16 ok for the moment. HDD Should be fine. However till January the things will for change, for sure prices for hardware currently available will drop as also new equipment will show up.

+1. Historically and for the reason how DCS evolved FC had a place. At the moment one of the best think that could happen to DCS is removing or splitting FC modules to a separate simulation. Anyway, NO for more FC like - simplified systems, avionics, flight models modules.