Lace

I just find it staggering to believe you guys with the 30x0 cards are struggling - I am running a 1070 Mobile in my laptop and it is perfectly playable on a Rift S. Are you running thousand bomber raids? Running all settings at MAX and expecting 360fps? One of us is doing this wrong, I'm just not sure which of us. Perhaps it's because I grew up on this, I am more willing to sacrifice visual quality for performance. Maybe those more used to fancy graphics are expecting too much from VR? You have immersion, quality and performance. Pick any two.

I set CMDS Program 4 to Chaff BQ 2, BI 0.25, SQ 10, SI 1.5, Flare the same BQ 2, BI 0.25, SQ 10, SI 1.5, which puts out 20 of each over a 15 second period, triggered just before a pop-up attack run.

Thanks, so no 'pairs' as such, just a slow manual ripple.

I can't seem to find any reference to releasing multiple JDAMs on one target - does anyone know if this is possible, for example if I want to drop a pair of GBU-31 on the same point in the same pass? Will a second release (within the bracket) still send the target data to the weapon? (i.e. two consecutive releases, rather than a pair). I guess another option is I could just have two very closely spaced steerpoints, release, quickly cycle to the next one and release again, but that doesn't seem the most efficient workflow.

I have decent performance from my 1070M and Rift S. Sure, the detail is dialed down a bit, and the PD could be higher, but it is certainly playable and smooth. The only times I really struggle is with large unit count missions. I'm surprised you aren't happy with the performance of a 3080, perhaps you just need to manage your expectations?

According to my very rough Google Earth measurements, a map covering East and West Germany would be about the same size as the current Syria map. A 1986 version should be less object dense than modern Germany, in terms of major cities at least, though certainly more dense than the current SoH and Syria maps.. I'm sure it must be on ED's long term plan somewhere (it has to be surely...?), perhaps they are just waiting for the hardware to catch up in order to do these types of map justice?

Thanks for that - great info. It seems the 4k is a bit of an issue. I would happily go for another Aorus machine as mine has been faultless, but the majority of alternatives seem to be going for higher refresh rates, rather than higher resolution. I guess the market for 4K gaming is small. My 1070 is still just about useable, on low unit count SP missions and med-low settings, but It would be nice to crank up the visuals a bit and maybe upgrade the VR headset for something with higher clarity and FoV.

I'll bet if they'd done an AH-1 Cobra it would be finished by now...

I've had CA for so long now, I'm not sure which features are CA, and which are DCS core.

How have I only just discovered Liberation? I had heard it mentioned in passing in a few places, but naively assumed it was some server based MP thing (I know it can be). I never realised it can be used to generate SP offline missions in a coherent campaign. Tried it for the first time last night flying one of the basic Caucasus scenarios as part of a DEAD package of Vipers. Compared to my home made missions, the coordination of the other ATOs and packages made the whole thing feel so much more real, as though I was genuinely part of something larger, rather than a one-man-air force vs the world. I would like to say a huge thanks to the developers. This would be an essential purchase for me if it was a paid module, but as something offered for free then I am even more appreciative. If the DCS dynamic campaign engine is as good as this then I don't think there will be much complaining. Thanks again, especially for offering low-unit scenarios as an option too, as many of the commercial, scripted campaigns I've tried are so unit-heavy they are unplayable on my modest system.

The F-15E, A-7 and A-6 are all day one purchases, as is the Mossie, even though I don't really fly the WWII stuff much. Further down the line, who knows what will be announced. The hype train for the Phantom is going to be a busy one!

Very much this. The idea of a sandbox covering a time period of circa 80 years is ambitious as a 2D strategy game. For a high quality, full fidelity combat flight simulator it is just crazy.

With real radio comms. Accounting for path propagation, atmospherics, interference, jamming and the physical location of the battlefield commander on the map. Units move out of range or behind a hill and you lose direct control, and no longer receive contact reports on enemy positions.

The way I look at it there are two ways to develop the CA element to DCS: Focus on the battlefield commander role. Have units contactable by radio, control movement, arcs of fire, ROE, resupply etc. played from more of a 2D map type interface. This would expand the possibilities of the dynamic campaign engine, and stay true to the DCS rather than DFS moniker. We could massively expand the number of ground and sea units without having to worry about modelling driving stations or gunner positions. Treat non-flying units as modules in their own right. Fully modelled and controllable accurate representations of specific units, in the same way they treat aircraft. Obviously the main problem here is the glacially slow development time of even AI units, never mind FF modules. Especially since DCS covers such a wide time period. (for reference, the C:MO database covers 3750 sea units and 2500 ground units within the 1950-2020+ time period, DCS would also have to add WWII to that!). To cover such a breadth of units to the level we have come to expect from ED would take an inordinate amount of time. Even 1% of that figure is over 60 modules. Without focussing on a narrow specific conflict or time period I just don't see that as achievable. Given those two approaches, I think only number one is a viable option. It allows strategic and tactical control of the battlefield, and is achievable before the year 2100.

Is this the plan? - I was about to start a topic on my disappointment in the sight implementation in VR, as I hoped that simply by looking down the sight lens one would see through the periscope as IRL, rather than the immersion-breaking pop up window. If this is WIP then that's fine, I can wait. I think it would be great to position my virtual head on the sight and adjust fire accordingly.

Not much broader appeal with that one, but it could be the start of an interesting concept - the Mini Map. Mini Maps could be much smaller (obviously) maps of specific areas, designed primarily for helicopter and CA operations. How about Mogadishu, Konna (Mali), Bo Town (Sierra Leone), Grenada?

Well, after 3 years I think the old girl has had her day. The trusty Aorus x7v7 with it's 1070M just hasn't got what it takes anymore. The latest upgrades to DCS mean it's a struggle even on the lightest of missions, so I'm looking for a replacement. I'm not interested in the laptop/desktop debate, I am away from home a lot, so it has to be at least semi-portable. The compromise in performance is acceptable, given that I will have much more opportunity to use it. I am looking mainly at the Alienware x17 Gaming Laptop | Dell UK. With a laptop version 3080 it won't be the last word in performance, but should still be a significant improvement on my current set up (GPU +82% according to UserBenchmark: Nvidia GTX 1070 (Mobile) vs RTX 3080 (Laptop). ) Only strict criteria are - a Display Port/Mini DP for the Rift S, and a 4k display (for C:MO). Any other options worthy of considerations? Any new models on the horizon I should maybe hold out for? TIA.

Thanks for the timeline. It looks like there are some exciting additions in the pipeline. It will be interesting to see how the ECM pods and decoys function within the DCS World environment. A wider expansion of the EW aspects of the game would be a welcome improvement. Also the A/G radar and HMCS symbology will be a game changer for the Viper's effectiveness.

Since there is not a day which goes by without some forumite lamenting the lack of 'modern' REDFOR aircraft and the resulting MP imbalance, perhaps one solution would be to add earlier versions of the BLUEFOR aircraft we have? 'A' model Viper, Hornet and (FF, not FC3) A-10 would be a great fit for the current REDFOR lineup. Flight models already exist and would just need tweaking, and there are fewer complex systems to create, so one would hope development time would be significantly shorter. They could also serve as a less intimidating option for new users, still realistic, but less complex in a similar way to the F-5. I know there is probably little financial incentive for ED, given most users will want the latest-and-greatest versions, but this is the wishlist thread, so I'm sticking with it.

Where to start...? BALTAP and GIUK would be great, as would the Fulda Gap, but really most of the BLUEFOR aircraft are too modern, we should really have the 'A' model Viper, Hornet and A-10 for those 80's scenarios (and F-111!). 60s/70s Vietnam with the right asset packs and modules (F-4, F-105, A-6, AH-1). Probably far too big though, especially if you were to include bases in Thailand. Libya could be a good option, but visually quite similar to the Syria/SoH map. The Korean peninsula makes a lot of sense, especially if offered in different eras (50s, 00s), like the Marianas map. The Aegean sea would be the right sort of size, plenty of water and a contemporary Greco-Turkish conflict would be well catered for with the current DCS units. A bit more left-field and I would go Angola/Namibia, Cuba/Florida, or Panama Canal. However, the best fitting option for our current modules and rough 90s-00s timeframe would be the Taiwan straights, or the Balkans/Yugoslavia.

I use an Xbox controller with my laptop when away from home. I think it actually works brilliantly, especially with VR where many controls can be manipulated by looking at them and clicking. With the use of modifiers most functions can be accommodated and the only thing I feel I lose vs a proper HOTAS is the fine movements (throttle mainly) necessary for AAR. I find the controller also works really well for helicopters. Here is my map FWIW: The blue are controls which I try to keep common with all aircraft, the white are aircraft specific. i.e. which ever aircraft I am flying I know that X is going to launch countermeasures and B is wheel brakes, which makes it easier to remember.

Very true, but in that case the limitation is the runway itself, rather than the aircraft.

Ever seen the state of your windscreen after a drive on a summer day? These aircraft operate at very low level. Lenses stay covered and bug free when not in use. Same reason TGPs are stowed on the ground, damage and bug splats can really degrade performance.

Given the amount of civilian and military transport heavies available for other sims, it is a shame that these cannot be ported into DCS somehow (IANAP). This could save a lot of development time and reduce costs. There are already decent modules in existence which would fit into the DCS world. C-130, C-17, etc for transport, PC-12, King Air, Gulfstream for ISR missions, etc. Offensive mission capable units like the AC-130 or B-52, and ISR platforms would have more systems to model, but for the pure transport modules anything from the civilian flight sim world would fit right in, assuming it was technically possible from a programming perspective.

It would be nice if the F10 map location was subject to downrange and cross range ambiguity, dependant on the type of emitters and detection equipment. Only when visually spotted (TGP, ground RADAR or Mk1 Eyeball) does the location become fixed. This is well simulated on a well known global professional-standard wargaming platform (the one where you take Command of Modern Operation scenarios). After detection each unit (once no longer being observed) remains at its last reported location with an elapsed time since last detection counting up. Obviously, a moving object is unlikely to be in that location for much longer, but until detected again the mark on the map will not update.