hughlb

I really appreciate these in depth development reports. Well presented, well lit renders, and the gif was a welcome inclusion. Nice to see we are at a point in sims, where the hydraulics of the wing spoilers are correctly modelled, visually. Impressive. Top points for presentation, it sets a standard for Licensed Third Parties.

Thanks for the report, Nick! I think in many respects, module development seems like a bit of a black art to the non-developers and those who are less familiar with programming (even for a vfx guy like me :). The timeframes for various components of development, as well as how different 'departments' contribute at different stages, can be difficult to get our heads around. I always enjoy any insight that you (the developers) give on your projects.

Good processor, should see no problem in DCS with it. Depending on when you want to get this PC, you could hold off a couple of months and see what Nvidia release mid year. As I said, the 970 is approaching the end of its life.

I went with an MSI because of their global warranty. Im in Australia, so I saved some bucks and had it shipped from the US. Thats really the only reason I went with the MSI. Honestly, I would just go for the best price on a 970. Its a great card but its been out a year and a half, so save your money and get a decently priced one. Furthermore, you wont notice the fps difference bweteen cards, even a 980ti seems to require settings being dropped for smooth gameplay. Spend whatever money you save on a fast CPU, or a reputable motherboard manufacturer.

:thumbup: Looking forward to it!

Whilst I wasn't alive when this commercial first aired, I remember seeing it during the 1990's, and reacting with a mixture of awe and genuine fear. The image of this strange shape rearing up like a cobra, it's underside black, swallowing the camera frame and indeed the car. It was otherworldly, and I don't think anything other than a Viggen could provoke that kind of response. I didn't know what a Viggen was back then, but that image has stuck with me for more than twenty years. Tony Scott's eye for shooting dynamic objects in film, like aircraft, was so well captured by this ad, and then Top Gun a few years later. Maybe I'll have a go at replicating this in DCS in a few months :)

Nice build Jinx! How do you get 110-120fps down the strip!? That's incredible, what are your in game graphics settings? In regards to fans. It's not really how many fans your case has, but how the air moves through the case. For instance, if you get mismatched intake and outtake fans, you can end up dumping more air into the case than the extractor fan can clear. This leads to turbulance inside the case, and that's the last thing you want (aside from no air flow of course). The case fans aren't really cooling your devices directly, that's the job of the CPU and video card fans, it's more about putting cool air into the case, and removing warmer air - you don't need lots of effort to do that, just smooth regular flow - keep your case on your desk if you can, people tend to put them under desks where they're a bit quieter, but with a good build in 2016, sound shouldn't be a concern anymore - but dust and heat build up always is! I am no expert on cases, but when I was doing my build, I looked for a case with good sound insulation (front door, insulation foam), and reliable/quiet fans. I have one intake and one extractor fan, but the R4 case does have expansion options. Ultimately you want larger diameter fans that work at a lower RPM, and you want to line the airflow up with your CPU fan. Also, clean your intake fan dust filter every month or so, it's easy to do and can profoundly affect your airflow.

With Motherboards, it's hard. A "Z" model is needed to overclock, I believe, if you're into that sort of thing. I don't overclock, but I went with an Asrock Fatal1ty Z97, primarily because it reviewed well and I might want to overclock later. I chose mine because it was a reasonably priced "Z97" board, with an emphasis on gaming. You just need to look into it, find a retailer and set your price range, then look at the boards in that price range, and read reviews on them. With PSU's it literally controls power to all your hardware, so it's worth getting something that is stable and reliable. There is a rating system with PSU's that tell you how efficient they are. You can often get a lower wattage PSU with greater efficiency, I'd recommend that over simply believing larger-wattage=better. Also, get something quiet, with a decent fan, afterall, it's another fan causing sound pollution on your desk! I found these two components the hardest to understand, but I had no knowledge on them to begin with. So do lots of reading, I wouldn't recommend any particular model, as I purchased my computer a year ago, so components have probably evolved. But I found Asrock to be competitively priced for Motherboards, and Coolermaster Vanguard to be a reasonable price/performance option too.

Hi Sukhoi350, you can view my system specifications at the bottom of this post. I believe it offers a good performance/price balance for 1080p, 60fps. A 970 is as much as you'd want to spend for 1080p, any more and you won't see a significant difference. For VR and higher resolutions, you're better off waiting. NVidia's Pascal line of cards is set to release later this year. It is suggested that they are designed with large resolution and VR gaming in mind. You may be able to get the 970 equivalent in Pascal, and save hundreds of dollars on what you'd spend getting a current 980Ti. For a CPU, invest in a i5 or i7 with a high clock rate. A lot of people on this forum use the CPU that I have. 16GB of RAM should be your baseline for a new computer, and it seems like higher clocked RAM will net you a few extra frames, but perhaps not worth the extra cost. An SSD should also be your baseline for program installations on a new PC. For a Power Supply, don't go cheap, I have a Coolermaster Vanguard S (RS650-AMAAG1-AU) 650Watt 80+, quiet and reliable so far. Case - don't skimp on this either, get one with decent sound insulation and DUST FILTERS! I have a Fractal Design R4 (There is an R5 out presently) I run all settings at "High" with a consistent 60fps or greater. It will dip to 45-55 over the heavier parts of Las Vegas, but jumps back to 60 higher above the city. So for 1080p, I wouldn't bother getting anything more powerful for little practical gain. Tree Visibility, Flat Shadows, Visibility Distance, and Depth of Field, all seem to affect Framerate the most. I ensure Flat Shadows are ON, and Tree Visibility is set to 9000. High Visibility Distance seems a good balance, and Depth of Field set to off. I find I can set 8x-16x MSAA and 16x AF without issue, and Ground Clutter maxed out.

I didn't really expect a response from Thrustmaster when I bluntly asked them about their future products.. but at least I got a response. Make from it what you will.

I don't think I can confidently separate these three, but after great soul searching.. 1) F-14-B 2) F/A-18C 3) F-14-A

Does anyone know of a guide for configuring my NVidia Profile settings ('manage 3D settings') for DCS 2.0? I've noticed a few guides on configuring the in-game graphics options, pros and cons etc. But nothing specific about the NVidia settings. Thanks in advance!

I did see that, thanks MacTheGoon. In fact, that thread sent me on a tangent into wondering what Thrustmaster themselves might be working on. I think the Cougar was released in 2002, the Warthog in 2010.. so maybe it's a little soon for a replacement, but given some of the big releases this year, especially the Hornet (and F-14), it seems like a good time for Thrustmaster to capitalize on the hype around these modules.

BUMP! Has anyone heard anything about a new high-end HOTAS? Could an F/A-18 stick of Warthog quality be in the works?

Great photo, it shows the degradation of the paintwork, and general grubbiness of the older plane, next to the newer (or maybe 44 just hasn't had a wash in a while).

'Too niche' is always a disappointing basis for not exploring certain aircraft and applications. We have a stable of trainer aircraft (Hawk, C-101, L-39) all of which could be considered limited in how they can be used in the game, but I'm pleased that we do have them, and they have their place. The A-10c has rightfully developed a dedicated following, and like the 117, it's an unusual and purpose-built aircraft. The 117 would be a welcomed addition, demanding a passive albeit tense approach to the strike mission profile. Surely people would find it thrilling to slip past SAM defences relying on stealth, whilst executing a precision strike from under the nose of the enemy. It's something we simply don't get to do with your average F-16, 15, 18 etc. All of which I love, but there isn't a great deal of contrast between them, or how they go about their mission. I remember being glued to the F-117 Microprose 'sim' back in the day, and what made it fun was that sensation of, sort of, pickpocketing from the enemy.. it was thrilling. I'd be curious to hear if the 117 has been thrown around the ideas table at ED or one of the third party teams.

After reading about people breaking their pro clips, I thought I'd try to avoid it. Grab a rubber coated coat-hanger (stops it slipping too much) and cut and bend something like this... then add electrical tape, and hey presto, exoskeleton!

I feel twenty years of flying sims was leading to your Mig-21, which is utter happiness. So I look forward to 2016 and beyond. Well done, lads, an excellent and informative update!

I thought I was going crazy, but I believe there is a drop in framerate on the ground at Groom. I don't know exactly by how much, as I run vsync ON. I had a stable 60fps yesterday, in fact I kept bumping up the clouds to try and get it to dip, but it held solid. Today it dips to 50fps when looking at the base buildings from inside the cockpit. Just thought it was worth mentioning. Not dramatic, but enough to notice in Fraps. EDIT: Yes, when paused it goes right back to 60fps.. as Andrei mentions. EDIT: Yes, seems to be unique to MiG-21 - just tested the Su-27, 25, F-15 in same conditions/location, and no FPS drop.

Thanks Leatherneck for making the MiG-21 compatible with DCS 2.0 :thumbup:

Firstly, is anyone building any of the Have Doughnut missions? I thought I'd have a crack at one, with my limited knowledge of the Mission Editor. I've attached an image of what I have so far. Luckily, the original documents have been declassified, so there is a bit of information surrounding dates and mission profiles. (nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_50.PDF) The first mission took place on February 8th, 1968. I can't find a start time, does anyone have any suggestions? Obviously the base itself is far more developed in DCS, but I believe I've got the aircraft parked in the most logical spot - in front of hangers 4-7, which according to the link below, is where "foreign technology" was housed during that period. (http://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/groom1960s.html) I'm trying to work out which runway was the original, and which direction to take off and land. I'm assuming the western runway, taking off to the north (it's the longest).

I agree, would appreciate the temporary fix. It's 104 degrees for the next four days, feels like Nevada not Caucasus ;)

Do you think manoeuvrability will be important in future fighter aircraft? To use the F-35 as an example; its difficulties often seem to surround homogenizing the roles of aircraft it’s set to replace; in the case of the Royal Australian Air Force, it’s replacing the F-111 and F/A-18; the F-35 obviously can’t be a perfect solution. Both those aircraft are purpose built, and physically very different. It seems one of the main restrictions in fighter aircraft are around keeping them a ‘fighter’, which is to say, maintaining their performance relative to other fighters and air superiority fighters. Manoeuvrability conforms the size/weight of the aircraft, and the size/weight limits it’s range and load-out capacity/options. Do you think a plausible direction is to develop aircraft that are essentially large platforms for advanced weapons; with an emphasis on speed, range, stealth, and weapons load? The philosophy of the nimble fighter aircraft seems almost redundant in this picture - why does an aircraft need to be designed to aggressively manoeuvre, why not leave that to its weapons? To get slightly Star Wars; Boeing YAL-1 suggests the possibility of putting a laser on the nose of a high speed, long range stealth aircraft, which could react quickly and loiter in the combat environment, eliminating aircraft and defending itself against incoming threats. Or even simply a larger capacity of conventional weapons within the same, high speed, long range platform. Looking at the costs of the B-2, which is this sort of idea in an A/G role; the costs are extremely high, but could this be a direction we are heading in?

I only have DCS 2.0, and noticed the MiG isnt working presently. I saw there was some mention of a hotfix about five or six days ago.. Anyone have a solution yet?

Purchased the Mig-21 with no regrets :) I figure I'll wait and see how the Mirage pans out; I'm sure it will be excellent. Thanks for your input, everyone.