sinelnic

Hahahahah Call of Duty heli version!!! Well I got 17 fps as the lowest, avg at 25, and 60 when going to kill enemy arty. I´d suggest to use fewer units...

:) good to hear! It so happens that in Russia everything is different. In DCS current engine, the water is "drawn" even when flying over solid ground. In fact, if you fly over a high altitude lake in the mountains, you'll see that the waves appear to be much lower than the lake surface, because all water is considered to be at sea level. Water shaders are resource hogs and by lowering their quality (they still look very good, you just don't get terrain and cloud reflections), you ease your fps a lot. Your fps are still very low though, for comfortable flying. I have an E8400 and get 60-30 fps, with an 8800 GTX. You can also try lowering View Distance = medium. But there seems to be some problem with your system, my CPU runs @ 3GHz, yours should not be much slower...

Hello Mark, I'm very seriously considering buying your product, even though I live in Argentina and would be forced to sell another of my neighbor's kids in order to be able to pay for it. I'd like to give you a couple of points that would make my decision easier: 1- Separate HOTAS and Pedals -> I already own a very good set of pedals!! 2- Perfect centering and near-center precision -> Mandatory in a chopper sim, and the basic reason why I'm considering replacing an otherwise perfectly functional (and expensive!) X45. 3- Adjustable stick height or easy moddability -> I like my stick long! I recently modded my X45 to be about 2 feet tall and I'm loving the added precision and comfort. It's also the ideal setup for the cockpit builder. 4- Collective "plug-in" -> Have you seen Urze's Collective mod? basically strapping a long stick to the Throttle, allowing for a much more realistic control of a helo. I modded my X45 in that way, and I'm loving it. Don't tell anyone, but I'd pay even more for those features.

Ok, for a very quick important performance improvement without damaging visual quality, in DCS options, use the following: - Water = Normal - Shadows = Active Planar Measure your fps again and let us know!

If I may give my opinion, I learned much more about how to handle the chopper by using the FD (Flight Director). In my early days (about yesterday) AP was very confusing and I found myself not understanding WTF I had to do to make the thing do wahtever I intended.

General rule is, increase speed in small increments and run tests for each increment, until your system becomes unstable (BSOD). Then increase voltage and repeat the cycle until you fry your processor. Then go ahead and buy an xBox. No really, try googling for overclock+your specific processor and mobo, you'll probably get very good advice on specific speeds and voltages to use.

Hi Speed, don't forget to tell us what your graphical settings are in the options menu, compared to your friend. With regards to the i7 being far superior than AMD, it really is, but DCS does not care much because it does not leverage multiple cores, it uses just one.

Please excuse my ignorance, what do you mean by "to add exponential"?

What are your graphics settings in DCS compared to your friends'? Also, what are the specific fps you and him are getting?

Also, the JDAM is CHEAP!!! ...er than a Maverick for instance.

Is that something that exists today? Is there any documentation on the subject?

Is it possible that your three AP channels got turned off? (or you got a malfunction on them, becasue of enemy fire or other reason) This is not Flight Director, this is flying without damping. When your AP channels are off the heli starts to spin and sling, conceded not with the intensity you mention, but maybe you can try a test flight doing the same maneuver with the AP channels off, if all other theories fail.

I hereby summon all forces of hell, Abaddon, Gehenna, Hades, infernal regions, inferno, pandemonium, infierno and New Jersey, to take thy for a full tour of the premises, until all possible resonance thy words may have produced on ether, has dissipated from the mortal world. :furious: And then I'd buy you a beer. But don't let this happen ever again, shall we?

And ED knows it, and will correct it when limited time/resources permit... they're far smarter than their AI!!!

:D

That's not ED's... but I'm very interested to know about that projection system!! could that be used with DCS??

It's easy to determine: use RightCtrl-Pause to show the fps, then lower AA, if you get more fps, you're GPU bound. Water and shadows are purely CPU bound, they will kill your fps even with eight 295 in SLI running on liquid-hydrogen-cooled overclock @ 640x480 :)

And that's not only brilliant, but the way most of the innovations we enjoy today in our daily life actually came to be. Computers took a huge step forward during WW2's immense logistic efforts that needed coordination beyond human capability. Going to the moon helped us get small-sized computers, but yet has to prove ANY sensible return on investment... there are some things private capital will just not do, and public capital needs to encourage. Once you take the development costs out of the equation, I think the consumer market becomes as lucrative as it can be. I'm glad TFC/ED is capitalizing on those mechanics. I figure the main stopper the guys must be facing right now on getting juicier military contracts is that the competition there is though, not on a per-contract basis, but for the scope of projects, i.e. there surely are some contractors pitching multi-billion dollar hypercomplex simulators that generate more "returns" to the military costomers, than the cheaper (and thus less "returning") PC based products ED can offer. I also think, though, that TFC/ED should put more emphasis (when money permits) in developing the gaming part of their product. I do believe your series would be much more attractive to a broader audience if they featured an excellent immersive tutorial, in the form of a "pilot career" that took you through various very well designed trainings and rewarded you in the process (I understand Matt's Producer's notes intended that... but try to get my point, that is FAR from what I'm trying to convey). Come to think of it, that could come in the form of a MMO. I keep thinking it shouldn't be that hard to find another company as a partner that could provide that expertise and share the gains. ED has already done the hard part, and all is needed is some guys with excellent storytelling talent and the ability to program good UIs, which are much more cheaper than a simulator engine and aircraft. Your "Arcade" variant could get quite a boost from this model as well.

Hi MrReynolds, DCS right now is absolutely CPU-bound, and does not take advantage of multicore. This means that you should not expect exponential gains from i7 nor i5, since their clock speeds are not that faster than the previous generation. Also, moving to an expensive graphics card is useless if you already achieve good framerates with AA and AF maxed out. My suggestions are the following: 1- There are a couple of threads about performance in Windows XP vs Vista vs Win 7, with nice computers. Use the search function to look for them, and take a look at their framerates. If your framerates are already similar to those, adjust your upgrade expectations accordingly :) 2- For a quick comparison, I'm using an E8400 dual core with 6GB RAM and an 8800 GTX, gives me 60 fps over terrain, 30-25fps over cities, @1920x1200, AA and AF 8x. This is with Water=normal and Shadows=Active planar. I cannot get more fps by lowering AA and AF, meaning my rig is CPU-bound for DCS. 3- I believe in long-term hw investing, I bought this rig about three years ago, and I'm still to find some game I cannot play @ max settings, and until developers take full advantage of multicore, I believe that's what will continue to happen. I was very frustrated to see FSX's poor optimizations, and was amazed to see how ED could improve the visual quality so much without taxing my hardware. DCS will not support multicore for another year or more (GGTharos dixit, correct me if I'm wrong), so I have plenty of time to invest in other areas (multi-monitors, better controls, learning to actually fly) before considering a full HW upgrade. Software development lags hw by many many miles, see how many games are currently designed around DX10.

I´d love realistic Med-Evac (or SAR) but that would indeed require collidable and non look-through/shoot through trees.

Only if we get DCS:Naive Georgian Villager Girl along with it.

Hi Zardiz Is it Yaw that you add, or Bank? Because Yaw should happen when you input rudder, not when moving the joystick... A solution could be to add a modifier to you collective axis (pitch and bank) so that only when pressing such modifier the joystick would move the helicopter... you´d only have to find a heavy object to place on top of the modifier key for regular flying :) Anyways, when I´m hovering I use autohover, so small joystick movements by operating the hat get corrected by the AP. Works for me...

Right. But there are no pictures...

Hi Kirai, even at your resolution the difference with no AA to 16x AA is very noticeable, I play on a 24" LCD @ 1920x1200 and without AA the image is lame, all object edges are jagged, with AA you get a much sharper image. As for AF that's harder to notice, basically textures that are farther away from you look better, but your problem seems to be making sure that the configuration is applied when running DCS, once you get it working with AA, you'd have also enabled AF.

Ooooh I see it then, that explains the right roll when accelerating. You really need to see this in 3D. So far what I get is that you first get right roll as described in my first series of drawings, then when you decrease F2 to balance moments by appliying cyclic, you end up having a net force in the direction of F1. Then if you jump to my fourth drawing, you get that net force generating just left yaw because roll is already balanced in the previous step. Amazing! So this really helps in flying technique: first left cyclic, then right pedal. Adjust whenever you change airspeed, collective, and pitch relative to path motion. Nice! Yes! that's where I got it from, but the two last pages are missing from the coaxial rotor chapter, and also the first ~60 pages where all fundamental equations are introduced... maybe Truth was there, we'll never know...