BeastyBaiter

Language barrier. Pretty sure it is the top priority ED module now and next inline for release from them. BST resumed work after the F-5 was released last year. I suspect it was paused again for the Hornet but it can't be all that far from completion given how long they've been at it.

Does this even matter IRL or in game? 6 seconds is a stupid long time to be doing 0 or negative G.

Assuming it's properly implemented, it will remove the single core bottleneck that exists when using a top end graphics card. I do not expect it to increase lr decrease performance other than that. This does have far reaching implications though, such as allowing more objects in missions and making 3 GHz quad cores from 10 years ago a whole heck of a lot more viable. It should also make VR at 90fps more reasonable

For me the electricity costs are trivial. The problem is you just can't make your money back from the initial purchases. That may change with 7nm Vega and the upcoming GTX cards, but I have doubts.

Yeah. I still have my 1080 ti mining part time. In theory it would make about $1.20 a day if run 24/7, ignoring electricity costs.

I have numerous 5-ish minute tutorials on youtube, but the A-10 isn't among them.

I'd prefer a minimal hood. Even in VR, that full hood will be difficult to use since there isn't an actual hood to press your face to.

It's exactly the same as the F-15's AIM-120. Currently you have to be in stt to launch, but you can immediately cancel lock and the missile will still guide. So no, it isn't just a reskinned sparrow. As for range, it all depends on altitude. It does seem much too short, but that's true for nearly all AA missiles in game.

It isn't that people are against it, it's that they want other things instead. Resources are limited and so making the O-2 implies something more appealing, like the MiG-23 or F-15E get cancelled or never even started. 50% of us realize that, 40% don't and 10% want an O-2 more than a MiG or F-15. Made up percentages of course but you get the idea.

Vulkan should solve all our cpu woes (unless you have an i3) but I suspect that's a long ways off. As for CPU vs gpu, dcs hits both pretty hard. I don't think even the 1080 ti is enough for a locked 90 fps at reasonable detail settings. But as you saw above, even an 8700k can't always hold 45 fps, so the gpu is often held back significantly.

The lead calculation does kill all the missiles at medium to long range. A few wide barrel rolls is all it takes to drop any of them from 20km range to 5km range.

For multiplayer, I recommend leaving it in standby all the time and using IR missiles + gun exclusively.

Not a valid argument but what is a good case against it is that it will get murdered by T-55's and BMP's. It is too slow to use unguided weapons in DCS thanks to limitations in the AI. To be an effective mud mover in DCS, the aircraft must either have guided weapons so it can keep distance or it has to be fast enough that AI gunners can't hit it when flown right. The 0-2 doesn't do either of those things.

The Yak-52, MiG-19 and F-14 are probable releases this year.

I wouldn't expect to do any tank busting with it thanks to the extreme accuracy of AI MG gunners in DCS, but it should wreck squishier stuff.

Not interested in this one. The reason is simple, it's a super slow mudmover without guided weapons. Given how DCS handles AI gunnery and damage modeling, planes like this are useless for anything other than buzzing hotels in Vegas. Even the lowly L-39 puts this one to shame.

That's a picture showing the thread hopping I was talking about. Open up task manager, ignore individual core usage and watch the overall CPU utilization. I don't expect DCS to take proper advantage of more than 2 cores until the switch to Vulkan is made. The biggest cpu killer is the graphics engine and DX11 doesn't really do multi-threading. There are some ways to mitigate that limitation but it tends to require a lot of work for only modest improvements.

Mr_sukebe is mistaken though. What he's seeing is thread hopping. With some settings, the 100% usage thread will rapidly hop cpu threads. This gives the illusion of higher overall cpu usage. Next time you see that, take a look at overall cpu usage. What you'll see is total cpu usage equal to that of between 1 and 2 fully utilized cpu threads even though adding up individual cpu threads would suggest double or triple that.

As others have said, DCS only uses 2 cores. You can play with affinity in Windows or process lasso all you want, that will never change unless ED does a major code overhaul. How those 2 threads are assigned is the only thing we or Windows have control over. As for why it consistently gets dumped on the last cpu thread, that's just a fluke of how Windows assigns threads. It has nothing to do with DCS or even what cpu you have.

Sweet :thumbup:

If you are after 1080p or 1440p gaming, then $1500 might be doable. Core system components will be an i5-8600k or Ryzen 5 2600X, 16GB DDR4 and a GTX 1070 or better. I highly recommend an SSD as the main drive but that isn't terribly expensive any more. This should allow for nearly max detail at a locked 60 fps.

DCS does not use any elements of the Vulkan api at this time and I don't expect that to change for a year or two.

Heh, I had assumed right click simply wasn't allowed. Been using mouse due to that.

Well, the 1080 ti is also a 300W GPU when overclocked. That said, Vega 64 performs like the 200W GTX 1080.

I understand the motivation for moving the viper from the bottom of the list towards the top, but to me it's just a single engined hornet. It's completely redundant both in real life and in game imho. Regardless, hopefully multiple projects can be developed in parallel, as was the case with split teams. I'm really hoping for the Hind and Cobra in the next 2 years with the Phantom not too far behind. Hopefully this didn't come off as overly negative. I do appreciate you dropping in and telling us what's going on, Wags, even if we don't always like the answer.