Mars Exulte

Should be on the main menu, and on the ingame ESC menu, too.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073RH58WN/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_9PXV0TQW69XKHQCP5QJZ?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1 I put one of these on mine.

The actual game manual is unlikely to be available until just before/after release. The actual helicopter's flight manual is probably accessible on the internet somewhere, considering how old the P is. Problem will be finding it in English, though... http://eechcentral.simhq.com/index.php?title=Mi-24V_Flight_Manual_part_1 I found this partial for startup prep anyway. I'm trying to find some other stuff. http://www.aircraft-manuals.com/milmihepinom.html Pilot manual available for purchase.

Yeah, of course, not everyone has the Pokemon approach I do :p The planes are usually only few gb apiece, if that.

This was something else I tested. A 500gb SSD all the way down to 15-20gb, running R/W tests all the way down. It made no significant difference. But for practical purposes, you should never max a drive out completely anyway, they do need room to shuffle files around and so forth. The way DCS is growing, yeah, I'd recommend absolute minimum 500gb JUST for DCS, and it's likely to grow beyond that sooner rather than later.

They are for practical purposes exactly the same. They promote a bunch of impressive sounding numbers in the sales brochure you will never see, which you would know if you ever bothered to actually do any tests. I did. Yep. If you are transferring single, large files or performing certain functions, you may see the difference. For normal usage, it isn't any faster than SATA. The map is not a single large file, it's large numbers of smaller files. Drives (regardless of type) are much slower in this regard. Think of it as a racetrack. The cars go real fast on the straights but slow down for corners, and only burst briefly here and there through twisty roads. Exact same principle.

All that Dyslecxi video did is remind me how much I hate Arma's idle animations. Whoever did that ''wiping dog crap off his boot'' animation should be aggressively flogged.

Heh, pretty much

Apparently

Obviously, laptop anything will be more expensive and generally inferior to a full size one, and I won't waste any time on that. If you're wanting a laptop for DCS, yes you can get one and yes it will run and yes it should be able to do VR provided you get the highest tier one you can get. I would suggest nothing less than a 2080/3070/3080 to play on something like a Rift S if you're hoping for a decent experience. I would also be prepared to cut from 4k down to 1440 (which honestly 4k on a 17'' screen or something is ridiculous anyway). In general, as with anything your results will depend on what you get and how well suited to your goal it is. The most important thing, because it's a given you're going to be pushing it hard, is to avoid all this namby pamby ''slim'' crap. Your components are going to get hot, and you're going to wany good airflow to keep them cool and avoid thermal throttling. So, forget ''laptop'' and think more ''this is a portable desktop''. The one's you're going to be looking for will be quite thick and heavy (we're talking 2'' and 10-15lbs). Sager is one I used years ago when I was doing the same thing. You don't game in your lap. You carry it to your hotel room or whatever and plug it into the wall amd leave there until you leave. It's lighter and less hassle than trying to cart a case and monitor etc with you. I would also suggest purchasing a well designed laptop cooler to help force additional airflow through the case. These kinds of setups will generate a lot of heat and you cannot put enough effort into dissipating it. I'm assuming you're wanting to do this ''proper'' like I did. So you should ve aiming for a 17'', heavy, thick case with good airflow, with the best CPU and GPU you can find with no less than 16GB of RAM (32 if possible). You can expect to put $2-3,000 into it. If you get the slimmer, lesser styles, they'll be a lot cheaper, but you're still unlikely to be satisfied with one that costs less than $1,500-1800 and heat is going to be a persistent issue, so I'd suggest just going balls deep on it and get it over with if you're planning on using it longterm for several years.

No? But you still sound a bit dramatic

Like the folks clamoring for a fully realised B-52 with all crew stations, because any of them are REALLY going to sit there for hours on end staring blankly at a screen and row of switches in DCS' sterile environment As I recall the Yak-52 was made for somebody else via contract and brought over to DCS in tandem, so its creation presumably had relatively little ''cost''. That said not every module is going to as popular as some others, so it's not really that big a deal. If we're talking about the online MP community, it's hundreds to maybe a couple thousand in total. The logical majority of the population required to sustain the game is considerably larger. That said, while that's a sufficient sample size for most reference cases, in this instance the two groups are largely polar opposites. The ''vocal'' DCS online crowd is heavily biased toward PVP activities, so SURPRISE, they fly the derpiest planes they can derp almost exclusively.

Hey, those trumpets won't blow themselves That said, waving a flashlight in my reflective vest while jumping up and down, hoping for a last minute rescue before we run out of supplies

You mean a deflection shot? Cause that's a thing, even with jets, and yeah, snapshots are a thing, too. I wouldn't bother with the radar gunsight, though, I'd just use the backup sight, as imo, the funnel sight sucks.

Whether you think it fits or would be cool is largely irrelevant. Stealth technology for aircraft is probably the most closely guarded military secret out there, next to nuclear weaponry. It's not going to happen, period, full stop, no point in pretending otherwise. DCS isn't Xplane.

That's interesting about the aggressor role. Learning to deal with stealth fighters, good idea since we're not ''alone'' anymore.

With two similar CPUs like that, the difference is likely to be negligible.

Yep, in both cases likely to be a limit due to hardcoding. It can be undone, but was never forseen or prepared for and requires redoing the whole thing for DCS to recognise it, which is a lot of work to support planes that by and large are too much hassle to be practical or cost efficient, and rewriting core code for a handful of transport planes isn't practical either.

The main thing you need is an SSD, regardless of type. If you're using a platter drive, it's going to stutter loading up the 50-60gb maps. Also above you talk about ''eliminating the CPU bottleneck''. You're always going to have a bottleneck somewhere in your system, it's unavoidable as your components are not precisely equal to each other at all tasks at all times. There is no such thing as ''eliminating bottlenecks''. You just want to avoid massive disparities in processing power, like an ancient CPU with modern GPU or vice versa is not a very efficient use of your resources. If you pair a good CPU with a good GPU and adequate RAM, that's literally the best it gets One or more components will be faster/slower than the others and something ends up waiting.

I doubt it, it's just a case of manpower, really. But we still have plenty of existing assets that need updating and overhaul *looks meaningfully at Tu-95 and B-52*

I personally think a C-130 would be awesome. A lot more feasible than something like the big bombers, and for all practical gameplay purposes, it's a one-man plane, though I will admit the four engines would probably be an ass-pain and require extensive coding just to add support. But as far as ''big multi-engine planes'' this is pretty low hanging fruit, and used by pretty much everybody except Russia and China (subject to change) for the last what, 70 or 80 years?

Really? My friends over there are still getting packages. Are you sure you didn't wind up on a blacklist somewhere? Probably all those government blackops and Wiccan agents upset about you spilling the beans on their global operations. No new GPUs for you, AMD and Nvidia aren't happy with you, no sir!

It's not just a matter of ''development''. The quality of the server and distance from players is the main determinate. The difference between a rented dual core server with 8gb of ram on the opposite side of the world and a high spec dedicated rig less than 1000 miles away can't be overstated. A lot of folks cheap on the server or connect to one far away then unsurprisingly have issues. The next main thing is mission complexity and script intensity (as well as how efficient those scripts are written, is it pinging every .001 seconds or every 5 seconds, for example). The more complex the mission, the less people you'll be able to have while maintaining good performance, that's just a matter of course. There will always be a soft cap on the maximum number of feasible players in any game, more so one like DCS. As global internet infrastructure and overall PC power improves, that will have more effect than anything else.

I believe someone mentioned once that Subs had been banned from multiple forums in the past... can't imagine why @@

The Caucasus map is a cobbled together mishmash of old and new tech. They didn't make the map from scratch, they just improved what was already there. So, no, it is probably about 50% of what the newest maps are like that have been made since then.