Canada_Moose

He actually stated in the video it was set up the same way they did in real life

Regarding DLSS... Not so long ago there were statements from the team here that DLSS will never be supported because it is NVIDIA specific. I get that and was fine with that statement even though it didn't make a ton of sense to me. Based on that fact, (quite heavily seeing as DCS is one of my only few 'games'), I went AMD this time with a 6900XT. Therefore I would now like to ask - is FidelityFX also going to be supported? Thank you.

Not doubting your comments here but I would be interested to understand how the MSAA aspect factors into this? Right now, enabling 2x or worse still 4x MSAA has a huge impact on DCS. A form of DLSS or FSR wont help with this?

15:20 in but worth watching the whole thing

I thought 2.8 was supposedly bringing performance improvements in VR? It seems the direct opposite was actually noted by the beta testers. Strange.

I'm happy with my choice. Its a solid all rounder and I use my PC for productivity more than simming so the 12 cores really helps.

I just had a choice to make on my 3700X upgrade. Went with the 5900X in the end over the 5800 X3D for several reasons already mentioned here. This is my last hurrah on the AM4 platform and I really did not want to change mobo at this point.

In addition to the topic of this thread, it would now also be very interesting to see how the new 5800X3D CPU stacks up. If DCS is able to take advantage of the cache onboard then the gains could be significant. It seems that not all games can make full use of the additional cache however.

Hello, I really appreciate the multi core development report pinned at the top of the forum. Was wondering if we can expect real scalability with this development? For instance, I'm currently running a 3700x on an X570 motherboard and I am considering a 5900X or a 5800X 3D (when available) as it is the last CPU series that will be available for my socket. 12 cores has some other benefits for me in production areas but there will be pluses and minuses for each CPU. Can we expect the multi core code of DCS to scale to 12 cores and beyond or will 8 suffice for best performance? Maybe too early to know, but thought I would ask before I purchase anything in the near future.

Good info in his dev blog too! https://blog.uhawkvr.com/

I have been cosistently on VR (rift S) for the last 16 months on DCS. I recently went back to 2D just for some testing purposes. I instantly noticed two things: 1) The increased resolution 2) The lacks of immersion and spatial awareness. As much as the better resolution in 2D is nice, the immersion and awareness in VR beats it easily IMHO. Really can't go back to 2D at this point.

Agreed, but they did make it clear that the new clouds was primarily visual and engine changes would come later. They were upfront about it.

Complete overhaul of the weather engine and inclusion of dynamic weather is coming later. This has already been said by ED.

If you search the forums SSAA was never meant to be on for anything over 1080p resolutions. That was ED saying that a long time ago. Looks like they are enforcing it now.

Yeah, Syria is already on Early Access pricing so its not in the sale.

If you hover the mouse pointer over the icon, the METAR shows up as a tooltip.

This is just a hypothesis. It appears ED are looking into the slider effect option for VR.

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/268836-side-by-side-comparison-of-forest-and-scenery-detail-settings-fps-rendering/?tab=comments#comment-4634106

Couple of people and myself tried to explain it this way as well on Friday but that didn’t help either apparently.

I don’t really need to post pictures. There are many people reacting the same way and the developers agree that the balance is not right. I don’t need to post pictures to satisfy your curiosity. It’s a simulator. The lighting is supposed to be reality not Art Deco Cyberpunk overly done HDR effect for an FPS shooter. I don’t see any of your pictures at lower levels trying to pick out ground objects. In fact, the way it is now, if you attempt to land on a runway in a cloud shadow it’s so dark that in real life I would be asking for approach lighting to be on if it wasn’t already. I have no idea what you mean about “what do I expect”. it’s quite simple. Put a partly cloudy scenario up and find a cumulus cloud casting a shadow over a town or airfield. Go and fly under that cloud in the shadow area and it looks like it about to be a thunderstorm kicking off because it’s so dark you can barley make out buildings or ground features. That doesn't happen at an airfield every time a cloud passes over! It has to be a very gloomy day for that. Yes, you can alter the gamma setting but then the sunlit areas are way too blown out. Also, note the comments previously in the thread about seeing airfield strips under the cloud shadows on the Channel maps. Same issue. It’s a little better on my calibrated CAD monitor but still not great. VR is way too dark. Maybe that’s more a Rift S problem though but it’s hard to tell.

nothing.....because that’s how it looks to your eye when you are in sunshine and flying OVER the cloud shadows. The issue is the contrast when you fly UNDER the clouds in the shadows. It doesn’t look like that in real life. When I fly on a partly cloudy day and I go into a cloud shadow it doesn’t look like I’m about to be hit with a thunderstorm as I do it!

wont make any difference in VR. VR headsets always control vsync themselves with their own implementation.

Well, the wispy cirrus stuff isn't really the problem from my perspective. The post from cooler07 shows the issues. If it looked like your photo I would be happy. Anyway, Im sure ED will get this sorted.

As already mentioned, dynamic weather will come later

You have missed the point of this thread completely......