Mars Exulte

Last I heard DCS World is intended to be the core for full fidelity modules, and MAC is intended to be an entirely separate product with lower fidelity modules so the two do not mix. What ''doesn't make sense'' about that? One is for the hardcore community, and one is aimed at something more like the Il-2/ War Thunder crowd. This is likely, I'd say, as FC3 has its core from 15 years ago or so, things have changed a lot since then, including DCS. Low-fi is not a guaranteed bypass for ''lack of information'' or ''lack of licensing/permission''. In particular, even FC3 aircraft have fully developed professional flight models (just like the full fi planes do) so we're not talking THAT much compromise. They're still going to need/want reems and reems of data. It's just the intricacies of the MFDs, radio, and complex avionics may be glossed over or bypassed.

Xilon, the planes we have are not from the Battle of Britain (which occurred in 1940). The planes we have are from Normandy/D-Day era approximately (1944ish). BoB planes would be Spitfire Mk Is and Hurricanes on the British side and the Bf-109E on the German side. What we have are Spitfire Mk IXs and Bf-109Ks (not to mention the late war P-51D and P-47D).

Yep. As for tracking telemetry and invasion of privacy, that's gonna be a ''voter'' issue. Don't vote for corporate suckups and push for the same kind of privacy and consumer laws available in Europe. -edit Also, screw Linux.

Those other projects are mostly busy work for their 3d artists who would likely otherwise be unemployed. It's not ''anything'' for the DCS community. They haven't taken any money, you're not out anything and neither is anybody else. Them doing stuff on the side while people are impatiently complaining about it on the forums is more a testament to individual maturity than their business model. I expect none at the moment, considering they have mostly been focused on wrapping up the Harrier, M2000, and MiG-19 (which afaik are mostly all in final stages). Their next focus looks to be on the Strike Eagle and MiG-23. Anything's possible. All another company has to do is choose to pursue that aircraft, it's not up to Razbam what other companies do or don't develop. Most of them are occupied with their own projects, and have the distinct pleasure of listening to their own little micro communities complain about 'what's taking so long for *insert*'

Windows Task Manager is in fact NOT anything to go by, especially if you're trying to troubleshoot something nitpicky like CPU usage per core or something like this. It is a generic half-assed utility, and for example, does not account for how Windows itself shuffles the load between cores dynamically at the rate of dozens of times per second. It is useless for troubleshooting, and that bit about it showing 40-60% core usage is absolutely inaccurate (it basically displays ''averages''). This has been hashed out a few hundred times on these very forums. While DCS does not utilise more than two cores due to its age, it DOES utilise those cores and it has nothing to do with ''spaghetti code'' (at least in this context). In particular you're describing two similar systems with a noticeable performance disparity that probably shouldn't exist... by definition that's on YOU the operator's end, NOT the software. Also, you mentioned the ''higher overclock'', a common misconception is that ''moar hurtz'' is automatically better, and that's not necessarily the case. There are a great many things that can contribute to high CPU latency. While in general I agree replacing your RAM is itself probably not worth it compared to the cost, numerous ''little things'' like that can soon add up in combination together and that's most likely what you're encountering : a series of inefficiencies or minor issues, drivers, etc gradually accumulating until you've got a noticeable discrepancy.

#1 use search. This is a well worn topic and you can find the issues bandied about thoroughly. In short it's not about ''classification'', and never has been. It's about needing licensing and permission from the manufacturer and government, which is difficult to get from Russia. See, this is the real world, and they have real laws they have to contend with just like every other company, and none of these companies give a rats A about our video game hobby. No, because it's not about that. Again, it's not about classification, you need the owner's permission, and you need actual ready access to technical information on the aircraft itself. That is literally anti-thetical to the whole concept behind DCS. You have now discovered the one thing that is not a core focus of the game : air quake. That said, competitive air quake does not require representative aircraft from Russia to work, it just needs a (preferably) variety of roughly comparable aircraft... which it has. If you're so ready to throw out the core simulation principle driving DCS entire MO, then it shouldn't be that big a leap to use a stand in aircraft either. Again, that's counter to the entire concept of DCS to wholesale ''make stuff up''. It also doesn't get around needing manufacturer and government permission, which is again, not particularly forthcoming. Whether you like it or not (or understand it or not), politics and commercial law are both influences on the situation. True, and there's not a whole helluva lot to be done about it right now. Deka are supposedly considering a Chinese Su-30 variant, IF they can get data, and IF they can get permission. Again, political and commercial realities because the government and industry do not really care about hobbiests. -edit In case you don't think these are really factors, poke around a bit for the multiple instances of people and/or ED getting tangled up in legal issues with various Ministries of Defense even from NATO countries. It IS an issue, those people ARE aware of DCS and they DO watch them closely.

I wasn't hostile. What do you want, fireworks and a song? I responded to the OP, ie what the thread is actually about, I don't really care what 47 other people's thoughts on the same thing are, I was commenting MY thoughts.

The Yak-38 isn't ''newer'', it's a 70s/80s aircraft, too. Not much of an ''opposition'', the Yak is basically a proof of concept (the 141 was intended as their ''real'' offering) inferior in every way. It had very short range, almost no payload, mediocre performance, and the manner of VTOLing in it was considerably more ''problem prone''. Probably shouldn't be on a discussion board then. Agreed. No news, and I'd say very little chance due to the likely short supply of info on it. The MiG-29 was widely produced and distributed, the Yak-38 was not. While that's not a ''hard kill'' on feasibility, the shorter the life cycle and more ''niche'' the plane, the less likely there'll be gobs of data available. Heatblur was working on an AI version, afaik there are no planes for a flyable one yet.

DLSS is adaptive anti-aliasing. That's literally it. It does not yield any magic gains, full stop. I'm 100% certain there will be. It doesn't. AMD already released their own opensource version of the same thing, cause. @OP Beware flashy sales ads. They're usually not relevant to real world application. As for game engines being interchangeable, in short, they're not. Just like in vehicles, while physically possible to change a motor, some motors are suitable to one task but not another. An engine suitable for a passenger car is useless for a heavy truck and vice versa. In the case of a flight sim, the engine needs to be optimised to handle the scale, speed, and physics of flight, which not all engines are designed for or appropriate for. Can any engine be rebuilt to purpose? Yes, of course, with enough labor and redesign : see Star Citizen which took a session based shooter engine and rerigged it to use as a open world MMO flight engine. Is this usually a good idea? No, also see Star Citizen which spent large sums of money and uncountable man hours hammering a square peg into a round hole instead of designing or using something more suitable in the first place.

If you can't read the native language it's pretty much a necessity. I can stumble through Russian/Ukrainian, but still prefer English for ease of use. Unless you're using a 1 to 1 scale replica pit of the aircraft you're flying you pretty much have to. There's too many differences between aircraft, and you're using generic controls. Logically, you should try to put similar controls on the same buttons for your own ease of use. ''Realism'' is great as a goal, but certain realities have to be acknowledged and trying to pretend/force ''realism'' in an inherently unrealistic setup isn't even ''hardcore'' it's just dumb. Making good use of the interface options you have isn't unrealistic : real world pilots absolutely do the same.

Not really, I'm afraid. But in general, if a module is approximately ''imminent'' or at least ''confirmed in development'' it will at least have its own forum section. No. The next releases are likely to be the Ah-64 Apache, Mosquito, Corsair, Oh-58 Kiowa, and possibly Strike Eagle. There's a few others, too, but they're probably too early to say for sure.

Likewise, the actual roadmap wasn't very useful, but it was a handy reference for any new info drops. Hopefully ED didn't whack it... that would be more than a little annoying.

That's weird. Maybe Dragon got tired of upkeeping it. Or just decided it was crazy out of date in many sections and needed a re-do.

Afaik, tankers fly their track, hooking up is the pilot's problem. I've never heard much communication in videos, and according to several rl pilots they also indicated relative silence. It's formation flight, literally one of the most basic, simplistic skills of aviation and one of the very first things most pilots learn. It does not take ''hundreds of hours per month''. It takes a youtube video and a half dozen tries.

That is an absurdly large amount of weaponry. I didn't even notice the sidewinders at first and was like ''There's MORE?''

long it'll take for people to quit spamming the forum with the latest sales brochures @@

We've all read the sales brochure, yes. The difference is some of us are experienced enough with life to know 90% of what companies claim in sales brochures is bs cherry picked to make people rush out and throw money at them. This happens to people chasing numbers sans common sense. A few years ago when 4k was new, tons of people rushed out to buy it when the tech to drive it properly was still 5-6 years away only to encounter *gasp* low framerates. Lo and behold, people rushing out to purchase VR headsets with grossly inflated ''specs'' that absolutely no PC can even hope to run efficiently also encountered... low framerates. DLSS and FSR are not magic that are going to suddenly make poor purchasing decisions better. Tailor your entire rig based off the technology available, relying on gimmicky graphic options to resolve jumping the shark is, at best, unreliable.

Turn AA on. Note the FPS and image quality. Turn AA off, note the FPS and image quality. DLSS and FSR yields results between those two figures. If that is your idea of ''game changing'' technology, you need to raise your standards and hold your wallet a little more tightly.

They have that already, it's the literal purpose of the axis configuration screen, where you can set saturation, curvature, and deadzones per axis, and even adjust it in a non-linear fashion.

''Make it moar realishtic!'' ''No, no, not THAT realishtic!'' It's pretty clear: You have no idea what you're actually presenting to discuss and You're not actually interested in discussing anything. You act like you just discovered how to use Google a few days ago, and can't wait to show everybody this fantastic stuff you found on the internet that nobody but you has possibly ever seen @@ I say that sarcastically, not because I'm harshing a ''new guy'' but because I'm harshing a low effort troll @@

Well where's the fun in that? Oh wait...

Xilon's really fallen down the rabbit hole...

Well, that does it, you clearly did a lot of research! @@ Not to be mean, but you need to work on building logical arguments and research.

A Rafael piloting dogging the nearly identical Eurofighter? Who would ever imagine such a thing? @@ Yes? Any fourth gen fighter is still competitive, that's why they still fly them. Aerodynamics is a finite science, there's a limit to what you can do with the laws of physics. Can GENERATE high AoA and NEEDS high AoA are two very different things. You need to read up on what this terminology actually means, because it does not mean what you seem to think it does.

You say without citing any particular information. Your ''personal opinion'' is not really relevant in and of itself. What ''reason'' do you have for what is clearly only your opinion? I don't see what relevance that has. You're also dealing with professional pilots trained to use their aircraft properly as opposed to gamers, that's going to be a significant factor. Which you have no reason to doubt, and could find plenty of information on had you bothered to even attempt to determine what DCS does or doesn't simulate. That's not the reason straight wings are used, #1. They provide better, more stable lift and handling at subsonic speeds. ''Turn'' and ''climb'' is a different factor not directly related to wing shape. They do tend to function as a big airbrake at high AoA, it's true. ''Can't vertical''? What does that even mean? That's a factor of thrust to weight more than wing shape, regardless. Oh dear... Not all spins are created equal. Some are severe, some are not. There are other factors involved, too, besides only airframe, mostly related to the hows and whys you entered a spin in the first place. It can, if it lasts very long. Again, this is circumstantial. No. The recommended procedure for every plane in the history of aviation is ''save it if you can''. Ejecting comes into play if you drop below a certain altitude where you're unlikely to have enough time to save it. Gamers disregarding operational harddecks is not the game's fault, but generally this depends on what altitude you were at when entering the spin. At 20-30k ft, you have plenty of time to attempt recovery before even reaching any hard deck. I'm assuming you mean high angle of attack maneuvers? Ie the nose pointing one way and the plane moving another? That's very much a real thing and easily observed online if you want. It depends on the plane, though. A Su-27 can pull more alpha than say a P-51. They do. Again, you have no evidence to say so, and it's pretty clear your understanding of what you're talking about is ''hazy''. No offense, everyone starts somewhere. You won't be banned, but you're definitely not going to be taken seriously. I can with fair confidence most sims from the last 20-30 years were pretty rough around the simulation aspects. They didn't have the processing power for complex aerodynamics for one, but they could fake it pretty well sometimes. Afaik, you can't script stuff like that in DCS, but the wind does surge up and down and vary in direction a bit.