fjacobsen

I agree Maybe if they added the option to choose between various texture resolution. If You run on 1920x1080, then You don´t need 4096x4096 textures, but could do fine with 2048x2048 or even 1024x1024. It´s not so that DCS at present looks better than other flightsims, that uses far less resources.

+1 I feel that there isn´t much point in putting more modules into thi, as long as the dev's doesn´t put more effort into optimising the core sim. Vulcan might make things perform better, but so we where alos told with the introduction of DX11 with DCS 2.x and "in progress" means that we can be a year, two years or even more from seeing this. Optimisation and bugfixing doesn´t seem to be of highest priority.

I must say that I wonder why not more resources are put into optimising performance, considering the amount of posts about stutter and poor performance. It´s clearly not just a matter of adding more RAM or using SSD's.

Without Pressing LAlt+Ent in the sim, You will run in borderless window mode and to true Fullscreen. This has been so for ages now - wonde when they will fix it.

Note that on many (if not most) aircraft, You don´t turn everything Off to make it Cold and Dark. Often they are Off/Auto or Off/Norm. Some systems are only turned Off if they fail etc..

You are definitly right, but it is a workaround more than a fix.

You might be right regrading comparing FPS and racing sims with DCS, but do note that I also have the other flightsims You noted, and they run silky smooth with better graphical quality than DCS - and this running from a HDD. Comparing DCS with the other combat flightsim, damage modelling, AI flight modelling and also graphics are better. Offcourse those two cannot fully be compared, since systems modelling and cockpit mechanics are different, but still - 8GB RAM and a GTX960, for all the mentioned flightsims, is sufficient. Last not least, we where told that DCS2.x would give better performance than 1.5, due to DX11 and better optimised code, this is not exactly what many of us has seen - quite the opposite.

I run DCS from a HDD - and again... No other game I have installed needs a SSD, and having to use one only indicates that something isn´t right with the optimisation of DCS. NTTR, Caucasus with most aircraft runs mostly fine, but the Normandy and Persian gulf maps stutters alot. The AV-8B also seems to be quite resource hungry. This is with very simple missions in single player. I have yet to succesfully load a multiplayer session. I also wonder about the Persian Gulf map, cause NTTR, which it looks very similar to, runs much better.

I have been a long time fan of he DCS series all the way back from the Flanker series too. Like many others I see alot of stutter in DCS 2.5. I know my system is modest with too litle amount of RAM (8GB). Problem for me, reading this forum, is that though I should increase my amount of RAM, feedback from other users also shows that this won´t fix stautter and bad performance. The recommended amount of RAM right now is 32GB, but even those with that much RAM report stuttering. So my conclusion is that stuttering and bad performance is not related to bad PC systems, but rather a badly optimised simulator, eating up too many resources for no apperent reason (not visible at least). There are tons of well meant sugestions to get the sim running smooth, but most are just placebo effects. I wish the developers would be more active to explain and guide people how and why it stutters and also put more effort into enhancing this aspect, since it´s a real immersion killer. Looking at the many feedbacks from people with quite high PC systems, I find being told to buy a better graphicscard, more RAM etc is more a workaround, than a fix. Is the high memory consumption due to too big texture resolutions being used ? Would an option to use lower res textures help ? (Some sims offer the option to select max texture resolution). Though a recent feature to unload unused textures has been added - is this as optimised as possible - or could more be done ? For my own part, I wont go out spending more money on new hardware, if I´m not sure that this will help, cause none of my other games, being it FPS, Racing sims, Flightsims has so big hardware requiremnts that DCS. Back at DCS 1.5 we where kind of told that performance would become much better with DCS 2.x, due to better use of multicore CPU's and DX11, but my experience is quite contradicting. I have spend quite a large amount of money on DCS, only to see the enjoyment drop considerably, cause most effoert is spend on adding more modules, and little on enhancing the overall game. Damage modelling, Ai has been asked for avery long time now and little has been done. Modules in early acces seems to run forever ans some of them seems to have partially disbanded, cause new money cows are more interesting to develope, that finishing what has been started and paid for. Sorry to sound disheartened, but sometimes such questions has to be asked.

A rather meager update today. If Razbam doesn´t have the resources to run 2-3 projects in parallel, then they shouldn´t do so. Look at Heatblur - they come with rather hefty updates to their AJS37 Viggen, while also nearing the early acces of their F-14 (which, as far as I understand, comes rather feature complete)..

And uncaged ?

Nice to hear... Can You elaborate on how developement is prioritsed between the modules ? The M2000C seems to be in beta forever and not much, if any, progress is shown. I think most can agree that it´s far from feature complete or bugfree. Regarding the AV-8B - recently (last 6 month or so), progress seems to have slowed down and now almost at a standstill. HUD repeater is fine, but many features are still bugged and has been so for a long time. At the same time there is now much talk about the MIG-19. Nice and fine, but honstly I feel that Razbam DCS history has shown that I risc to see the same pattern from the M2000C and AV-8B, being repeated on the MIG-19. Alot of hype until release of the early acces, then a few month with fine progress, but then slowing down to a point where only small additions and bug fixes are done and the next module announcement is made. How long has the M2000C been out as early acces ? (answer: it was released for early acces Dec. 2015 -> almost 3 years ago) Do You find that such a long timespan is reasonable ? Is this also what we can expect for the AV-8B ? Then for sure the MIG-19 won´t be for me ! I have no problem with early acces, as some probably will chime in and tell, but when paying money to support a developer (which early acces is all about) also means that the are obligated to put in max effort to finish the project. If it´s a very complex aircraft, then I expect it to take time and I´m happy as long as I see reasonable progress being done - sometimes large updates, sometimes smaller - but at least constant progress. Offcourse a project can be hampered if thye 3rd party developer is awaiting ED to add some functionalities required for the project. All in all it´s also about proper communication, which hasn´t been very strong to say the least. I hope that Your entry (=DECOY=) will righten this. Best regards FinnJ

I got in touch with Razbam via Messenger on their Facebook page yesterday evening. They told they woul add a changelog, but nothing has been posted here as You all can see.

I see this too some times with the TPOD in HTS mode. Slewing the TPOD in HTS mode sometimes switches the MFD to DMT.

Personal I'm not going to buy another Razbam module before I see more progress on the M2000C and AV-8B. So for my sake they can shift all their focus over on the Mig-19, but I' m not going to buy it - I'm not going to get burned a third time. Look at Heatblur, they are doing a much better job. Developing the F-14, but at the same time keeps making large updates for the AJS37 Viggen. I don't undersrand why ED tolerates Razbams way of releasing early acces modules without doing more to finish them, cause the frustration from the customers also hits ED. Please Razbam - finish what You started - You allready got paid for it !!!

With "Pop ou" - dp You mean not correct aligned and scaled ? Text on the right side is cutoff and OSB functions not visible (FLIR etc..).

This also leads to the impression that the developement is at an almost standstill, while it´s actually not - causing some frustration.

Why are no changelog posted here in the DCS forums anymore ? I just found this on Razbam's facebook: Today's DCS AV8-B Harrier Beta update ???????? HUD REPEATER = FLIR TO HUD = FLIR behind HUD REPEATER in MFD = DMT SLEW live in the REPEATER and HUD= HUD repeater though has been reported to be bugged.

Seems they are more involved now with the MIG-19. So.. soon they have 3 unfinished modules for DCS.

The 26.September updates for both the M-2000C and the AV-8B seems very meager.

Great to see that this project is so alive. Two other 3rd party DCS modules looks to lay dead in the water - No name !

12-09-2018 OB update - and still no changelog with bugfixes / additions ? I don´t hope we will see another M2000C

Should also not be necessary !

Have You looked into the “Missing feature /bug list “ thread in the Mirage forum ?

+1 After each buy I ask myself "When will I learn i". I really want to support the various developers, but is seems to end up with the same scheme. The M2000C has been in development since forever. Maybe not called "Early access" anymore, but in my eyes it definitly is and not much going on. Now the AV-8B also seems to have slowed down and the content of the updates that are released are rather meager. In my opinion the state of the modules should be much more refined before being released into early acces. Maximum a year to get them finished should be anticipated..