Donut

The Warthog stick already automaps the DCS: F-16 buttons...

Wow, talk about taking advantage of people! Warthog stick and base on Amazon.com right now: $248 Separate base and F-16 stick: $390 They want people to pay $142 more for the same exact product?!?! That is disturbing...

I just noticed this today! I haven't ejected in awhile... I have a button on my throttle mapped to LCtrl+ E...one press and it ejects, but should be three presses before triggering an ejection.

+1 At least for all the indicator lights...I can barely tell if any of them are lit let alone read them, and this is on a 1440p monitor!

Now this is a valid complaint...it really does. Not to mention, it's an F-14D! An artistically edited in game shot is more fitting and very doable for Heatblur to accomplish.

On an empty map...sure. What happens in a mission, with other aircraft and ground vehicles? What is your FPS sitting on the ramp or carrier deck with several aircraft nearby? Unless the 2080 Ti is significantly more powerful than the 1080 Ti, I don't think you could maintain 60 FPS in all situations with high graphic settings. With a 1440p monitor, I have shadows low, terrain shadows flat, civ traffic off, MSAA 2x, everything else max...my FPS will dip below 60 in any aircraft on a busy ramp or carrier deck. Flying over Las Vegas or Persian Gulf cities, FPS will drop into the 60's...occasionally into the 50's with the Tomcat. This is without even running a mission of any sort. On my system, MSAA seems to be "free" as I don't see any increase in FPS with it off. I do see a drop in FPS with aliasing higher that MSAA 2x or SSAA 1.5 though.

I wish I could say that on my end. Compared to the Viper and Hornet, I see 10-20 less FPS in the Tomcat, plus I drop below 60 FPS in many more situations in the Tomcat.

There is no question that DCS needs better performance optimization. At 1440p, I see FPS drop into the 50's at times...and this is with several graphics settings lowered. My system is listed in my signature below...it is at the higher end. Single player empty map, F-14 sitting on the runway at Nellis looking straight ahead, FPS 90 Same exact as above but now with 10 static aircraft sitting on the ramp at random places, FPS 55 Flying over Las Vegas or cities on the Persian Gulf map, FPS will drop into the 50's...this is on an empty map! Any of the carrier missions...FPS will be in the 50's while on the deck. This is in both the Tomcat and Hornet. I have found that I have to lower graphics settings significantly and settle for a poor looking game or just deal with not being able to maintain a minimum of 60 FPS. For a higher end system, while not even running a mission or multiplayer...that is just poor optimization.

What?! You haven't bought it yet!?!? Go buy yourself a Tomcat for Christmas! This is one of the biggest reasons why I love flying the Tomcat and prefer it much more over the single seat FBW aircraft and their associated systems management and information overload.

Nope...I make sure I do that after every graphics change, DCS update, and GPU driver update. On my system, aliasing has no noticeable effect on FPS for some reason. In my quest to improve FPS in the F-14, I have noticed that shadows by far have the greatest impact on FPS, followed by mirrors and visib range. I wish I saw an increase in FPS by disabling aliasing. At 1440p, it is something I could sacrifice, because lowering other settings has too much of an adverse effect on image quality.

On my system with 1440p, I do not see any FPS difference with MSAA 2x or SSAA 1.5 on/off. Empty NTTR map, F-14 sitting on the runway looking straight ahead, FPS around 90. Same situation, but with a few aircraft on the ramp, FPS in the 50's. I get the same exact FPS with aliasing on or off. I make sure to exit DCS and delete the fxo and metashader folders after each change.

The F-14 is extremely demanding on a monitor as well. I think further optimisation is needed across the board. When using 1440p resolution and above, I don't think there is a consumer PC out there that can maintain a minimum of 60 FPS with high settings preset. It's a shame that this incredible module cannot be fully enjoyed in all it's glory and needs several graphics settings lowered, even on high end systems. VR is even worse Maybe we just need to wait for ED to implement Vulkan...that could unfortunately be a long wait though.

With 1440p, I use MSAA 2x. I don't see any increase in FPS with it off...same with SSAA 1.5 on/off. If I saw a significant increase in FPS, I would keep all aliasing off, but on my system it isn't the case so I just keep some sort of aliasing on.

Thanks for the hard work...looking forward to the announcement! Hopefully the surprise is the release of the Corsair...and of course a nice little WWII Pacific map and carrier. :pilotfly:

I am not seeing that option...

I am all for more/improved Tomcat sounds and less Jester. He can be a bit much at times, especially while refueling. I would rather Jester voice only mission critical information.

I think most of us have accepted what early access is and also understand why it is needed. What people are truly upset about is how it is handled. It isn't about "I want it now," it's more about "I want what I paid for and what I was told I would get." We didn't know that development would stop on the Hornet and go to the Viper, we were actually told the complete opposite. We didn't know the Viper would be released in such a poor state, considering the standard of high quality set by previous modules. We didn't know that development would now end up having to alternate between the Hornet and Viper. Bait and switch tactics, money grab...whether intentional or not, that is the perception of what early access seems to be right now. What is being viewed as good news from Wags for the Hornet right now, is actually bad news for the Viper. When development switches back to the Viper, it will be bad news for the Hornet again. I don't think any of us envisioned this being how things would progress for either aircraft when we originally purchased them. I think a lot of this could have been avoided if ED was honest and forthcoming from the very beginning. Tell us that there aren't enough employees to fully support multiple aircraft, causing development to switch back and forth. Tell us that the F-16 would be released as extremely early access and not meet the standard of high quality set by previous modules. This information must be out in the open before taking money from people and asking for their support.

Is there a reason why he does all his videos from Creech AFB instead of Nellis AFB?

I have the Tomcat, Hornet, and Viper... I have done a few acceleration and climb tests and the F-16 wins in everything accept final top speed...that goes to the Tomcat. If you are choosing an aircraft based only on performance, the F-16 is hard to beat...just be aware that it is extremely early access compared to any other aircraft in DCS right now.

I think you could be right. Egypt/Libya might just meet all the requirements...but I don't know how we would all feel about another desert map.

This is good news and I want to be positive... My only concern is, what happens to the F-16 now? Does development now stop for it? There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done. I hope ED doesn't think they can switch development back and forth between the Hornet and Viper...that isn't going to go over very well with anyone. Yes they did, ED said it themselves. Now, the latest Newsletter mentions there being one developement team...if they are back on the Hornet, who is working on the F-16?

All very true. The current lineup of WWII aircraft tells us that the map will be somewhere in Europe. A location that does not include England, France, and the Black Sea narrow the possibilities considerably. For me, the only possibilities that could fill all the requirements would be the areas of the Mediterranean, Norwegian, Baltic or Barents Seas. However, a lot of those areas include big, highly populated cities which would require a lot of work to model for both WWII and modern day and of course would not be performance friendly. Hopefully the mystery is solved soon!

Those recommendations can be a little misleading. Maybe BIGNEWY can be more specific.... What screen resolution are they for and what is the expected minimum FPS? My system is listed in my signature and my monitor is 1440p...with the high graphics setting preset, I struggle with performance and FPS drops below 60 FPS at times. My system exceeds what is recommended so ED may be basing it off of a 1080p monitor. However, my system exceeds the VR recommendations as well and if I struggle on the monitor, there is no way I could run VR with any sort of acceptable level of graphics and FPS. The lesson here is that DCS requires a lot...get the absolute best system that you can afford.

For the most part, Early Access and current modules were in a good place until the F-16 came along. The F-16 tipped the scales by causing a workload that seems to exceed ED's current resources and capabilities. It also changed what Early Access means in DCS. The Hornet set the bar high, as of course the Tomcat did too. Heck, all previous ED modules set a pretty high standard for Early Access release that for some reason, the F-16 still has yet to meet. Take the F-16 away, and all is well with ED and DCS again. Development takes a long time, but the Hornet was progressing well. Why stop all that and hurt your flagship product along with upsetting your customer base? Was the income from the F-16 worth all of this mess? As the latest Newsletter has pointed out, there seems to be now one team working on both the Hornet and Viper...I remember Wags mentioning that there were only four programmers working on the Hornet systems at one point...that puts things in perspective. The F-16 is causing delays...Hornet customers have to wait for development to start again...and wait even longer until that development leads to the completion of weapons, systems, and features. Heatblur has an update ready for the Tomcat...but it too is delayed by the F-16. How can we not be concerned and upset?

I am curious as to the lack of news about the maps as well. Two new WWII maps and a free map...why keep the details secret? It's been about a year since all of this was mentioned to be in development.