Varis

No offense but then it sounds like you could have two problems with the cooling/airflow. The standard approach to cooling is to draw in cool (room temperature) air with one set of fans and to exhaust the heat generated by the system with another set of fans at the opposite side of the case. Circulating the heat due to eg. uncontrolled airflow is counterproductive. My case/motherboard temperature is barely above room temperature with a much more simple cooling system. How much is your typical GPU & CPU temperature relative to room temperature when running under a full load?

Haven't tried with the hornet, was pretty OK with Ka-50 for the instant action one. Could check in a couple of days. I've got 16GB as well.

Varis - Gazelle

Somehow I thought Gazelle L would do something like Mission 5 when it comes to actual combat. Before that I thought it'd fit well in some kind of a James Bond scenario :D Obviously some good mission writing - looking forward to the campaign!

The unofficial roadmap has a better damage model (including vehicles), infantry transport capacity for vehicles and a CA campaign coming, all are listed under 2018, some planned and some in progress state. Might mean we see some interesting releases early next year, but unless CA 2.0 brings some more important features, I don't see it as a big game changer yet. However more opportunities are opened and ED has also bumped up the price of the CA module so I'd think something is on their radar though it hasn't been yet communicated. What I'd think could be priority items in CA would be an improved RTS interface/unit control and player micromanagement over SAM systems (high profile air defenses).

Some nice thoughts there: 1) Synergy benefits for the air warfare (helicopters, ground attack) This is really the best reason to work on CA, to make the target and threat environment richer for the air units. And after all DCS is a flight simulator - that is their business today. There are interesting interfaces between the air and the ground. For one thing, the air defense network is a large aspect of air warfare. For what I know it's already there - what's missing is extending player control of SAM sites and such. 2) Broadening the scope brings more players (vehicle/infantry sim or CA in general) With better vehicle features DCS could achieve a larger audience. Tanks are attractive and infantry warfare is a popular topic - also one that has always been essential in warfare. Some people are primarily looking for combined arms games - ie. a full tactical or operational environment that is not focused on just one branch of service. Some players might be more interested in commanding on the operational level than playing at the lowest tactical level (1st person). Gaming software is developing and the competitors are adopting combined arms approaches. DCS needs to follow suit to be a market leader and continue attracting certain segments of their potential customer base. 3) We need 1st person control of everything This is actually a bit of an odd proposal. An enjoyable infantry simulator would need several years of focused development. For starters, a good infantry map has all kinds of small terrain formations and objects, from garden sheds to pebbles and little bushes. The maps tend to be 12km accross not 1200km - also note it's related to the rate of movement. What would be the benefit to air combat in 1st person infantry? The interfaces between air units and infantry are limited - in case of helicopters you do have fire exchanged both ways, in terms of small arms and manpads. The former is not a major threat for helicopters while manpads can be more of a game changer. So - if we introduced 1st person launching of manpads, would we have a good infantry simulator? No we wouldn't, and I'm not sure why anyone would like to play a manpad carrier when you could control SAM systems, AA vehicles or interceptors instead for a greater effect... I could see maybe tanks being worked on as a 1st person platform - they are often a high profile asset, so as a tanker you can make an impact on the battlefield. Push objectives, or counter mechanized assaults, hunt and take out straggling AA units etc. Would need a lot of work to make work well. At the same time, everything could be made to work in RTS format. It makes more sense for the player to be a company or battallion commander than even a tank (platoon?) commander. You have a greater impact on the battle. It's common for games with a larger scale to involve a RTS or strategic control UI than a 1st person one that might be preferred at the individual, fireteam or platoon level even (1st person strategy). This level of gameplay also hangs together better with the size of the maps which cannot have too great detail. ED will have to dance over abstractions like survivability of infantry that doesn't appear to be behind cover etc - it's been done before look at Steel Panther II, better maybe take the WarGame approach where cover is abstracted (inside forest, buildings as a state rather than a physical location involving LoS and trajectory) and infantry in the open dies very quickly. What I'm saying it's essential to give the players control, and for the size of an unit which has an impact comparable to use of air assets in the typical time span of a mission in DCS. RTS style interfaces are a good way to provide this as you can get all the control you need at the higher tactical level. A first person interface is optional, but usually doesn't bring significant benefits when the RTS interface is already there.

The North-East provinces have the most spectacular mountains towering up to 7.5km. Would easily be the most stunning scenery to fly in. I wonder how the ED technology would scale in a year or two to make a large map like that. They've done a pretty nice job with Iran but this the same on steroids. It depends on what major cities and borders you want. The whole of North is former Soviet states, Kabul to the East, Kandahar in South, Herat in North-West. Pakistan anywhere towards the South and Iran to the West. Climate/vegetation zones seem to be most varied in the North-East. Also the direction of the NE-Kabul-East provinces had much fighting in the Soviet-Afghan war and there's some strategic locations like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panjshir_Valley Some sporadic fighting was in the South and West parts while the Mujahideen had more control in the center.

Is there a problem with the airflow for some reason? :( Would imagine that to be counterproductive with today's gaming rigs... usually there's tons of ventilation to provide enough airflow.

A lot would depend on the terrain, I think - in the interests of gameplay. (Sorry for using an ugly word :music_whistling:) Other than that there are many historical and fictional conflicts that are possible with the area. The Afghan war was a pretty major thing for the Soviet Union - also don't forget all the Russian players and the Russian equipment in the game. Conveniently Mi-24 is also coming out… ? Depending on which conflict you choose, the equipment and operations will be very different. I'll have to check which valley was the scene of the most heated fighting in the 1980's war. But many battles are documented which can be very interesting for historical scenarios.

I could imagine that happen during a crisis time (when most of the campaigns happen, obviously). There could be tons of interesting scenarios where military + civilians mix. It's seen in some other serious military games. Combat aircraft could operate out of civilian airports, or maybe the threat environment is so that civilian traffic is still running, but the military is present... just in case. Also, the situations where you need to distinguish between friendly, civilian and enemy targets... could lead to some new considerations.

Thanks for the info! Yes the purpose was to gather what we players know, sorry for my clumsy wording of the question. As it is there is some misinformation/misunderstandings around ED forums, but some players also follow any news, podcasts or updates quite closely and can be good sources of information. Good to know that updates are coming. Why this is important: Of course we are curious as we fly the module actively, but also one needs a range of reasonable expectations as a customer, so we don't go too far with wishes/requests, and can give useful feedback that can be worked on (eg. important bugs when any are around). Will be interesting to hear of upcoming modules as well. Peace and keep the rotors spinning!

I guess your mileage my vary - my system is like between that of Bun and Knock-Knock, also 1080p, high graphics settings (a bit conservative on reducing clutter like trees/particles/view distance). 16 GB - finally actually managed to install/upgrade to this spec! So far mostly just light singleplayer and flying around the PG map (helicopter and F-18 ). It's quite amazing how well DCS has been running for me, much smoother than 6 years before when I tried it with a practically brand new computer. (Core i3 -> i5 may make a difference...) The PG map seems to be running very well... will yet have to try the tricks like looking all directions while going between the skyscrapers in Dubai or to run an actual mission (the map is so amazing I've been just gasping at some Iranian mountains so far). But it's all quite promising yet. Any other ideas to find your performance bottlenecks, I hear multiplayer can be fairly demanding too? Also looking to upgrade to 4K. Now I'm running GTX1070 and would continue with that to 4K. Will probably have to play around with the graphics settings to make it fit 4K. Upgrade to dual 1070 a bit down the road with a newer system.

DCS often tends to be heavy on the hardware and many people run it on very expensive systems. You may also need some money for controllers depending on what you do (I've been starting out with just a good $60 joystick from Logitech). SSD can improve the disk performance (eg. for booting and the system) if you have some budget. DCS is bit of an unusual game since some users even report increased FPS on a high-end SSD, could be due to the huge maps. I think mission loading times would be tolerable without though (that said my DCS nowadays is on a new but bread-and-butter Samsung EVO). 256GB is not a lot of space nowadays if you want to fit in the system, DCS and a few other games, could be workable and it's easy to add more SSD later (my newish system has already 3 and few other upgrades...). Check that you actually go for an SSD that has the performance, a number of major brands have been offering SSD that doesn't match the performance leaders like Samsung and a bunch of smaller brands. How much video RAM does DCS need if you select a lower texture quality? Maybe you could go for a cheaper GPU and leave that as an upgrade option (the other components would be quite adequate for general gaming for a while). What I gather CPU and RAM are the real bottlenecks. Single thread performance might be what you should be looking for, not sure about this point though - you can read the numerous hardware/beginner threads to get better informed.

Thanks for the update. This could be an interesting aircraft to try out in a free weekend :sorcerer:

The Mig-31 is a two seater. Would be lovely to see either that or Mig-25 from Heatblur - would be a natural REDFOR platform to put toe to toe with the Tomcat. Can you say no to Mach 3.2?

VR is still new and evolving tech, I'm still waiting for it to evolve before I take any serious look. What I hear it can be a blast in its own right but there can be issues like performance or you get some kind of nausea... With DCS some people seem to much prefer it. 1060, 1070, 1080, +Ti are Nvidia graphics cards, very popular in gaming nowadays. 1080p might refer to the screen resolution when it's implied by the context. (Naturally it matters for graphics cards too - for performance reasons. 1080p is the entry level resolution nowadays.) Hardware may need a bit of planning ahead. If what you have works somewhat I'd first see where you go with DCS and what level you eventually want. There's tons of expensive upgrades one starts thinking with DCS. Just bought a 0.5TB SSD for games etc - already reading stuff that makes it feel a bit small, thought about recording some videos with DCS. And they say you should get a faster model with M.2 interface, I'm just using a regular one for lower cost.

This calls for an Alaska map ;)

Games have come such a long way and the pricing and development costs have evolved. The last days I've been flying around the new PG map just looking at things … a far cry from the old days of small maps and little detail. (Anybody still remembers wireframes?) New and potential players look at things a bit different from loyal customers who know ED and also that what they offer is fit for their needs. For the rest of us, there are risks... is ED a trustworthy developer, is their vision something that can deliver value, do you have enough time and interest to learn high fidelity modules or will your investment sit on the shelf largely unutilized... DCS does have a little bit of a reputation here. Why I can sit on the fence with this module is also because I already have 3 aircraft, high-fidelity, plus the CA module. Will take ages to play the ins and outs of those, so another aircraft would be just an expensive curiosity. The PG map shows what we are paying for though … start to understand where people who claim $50 or $80 is the fair price are coming from - different train of thought there ;)

I've just seen one hill that had strands of snow. Don't think we got any snowcaps in this one sadly :cry: So far what I've found somewhere west of the Lar airbase is my favourite. Lots of canyons, small mountains and very interesting shapes and formations of the terrain. Take a fast helicopter and go 50km west... big area to marvel at and explore.

Comments from watching the stream and reading the thread: The RED vs BLUE situation is asymmetric, because the Gazelle is much better suited to AA jobs (especially in a simulated PvP environment). Bluefor however didn't have much in the way of ground attack capability - the Ka with its heavy armament is a clear leader in this department, but in this match the RED team could not utilize this due to the Gazelles being too big a problem and because of the conditions. On a better day a competent Ka pilot could quickly clear out AI units. The mistral doesn't seem to score kills easily in my very limited experience. It looks like it records very light proximity hits (seen this thrice) and you need two hits to take out a target. However it's extremely quick to get fire on targets - there is hardly any locking time at all, thus they can be a problem in a setting like this. The L model and the Hueys apparently perform quite well too, the ammunition count on the L is not a problem in this context like I thought. It could be a good idea to enforce a quota for the M model (4 x HOT3 ATGM is the loadout) to make the situation more symmetric - the weapon systems (L+mistral versions) used in this scenario are also piss easy to learn and operate, thus when you start training for a new heli you are hunting people in MP by the time the Ka pilots have just learned to utilize their weapons on stationary trucks and APCs. My impression is the Ka is a more skill intensive platform overall. If the problem is more the team roster you could enforce a quota on the Gazelle minigun version (2 players per heli). Could be interesting to see how much multicrew increases situational awareness and the use of smart tactics. A couple of times it seemed the Ka tail will come off quite easily - like with a short 20mm burst. Could be just how damage is applied since I understood damage models are somewhat simplistic in DCS - if not this seems like an unexpected weakness in the helicopter. Survivability seems at least fair otherwise. It seemed many Ka pilots did not deploy flares. Does the threat warning system have a problem detecting the mistral? Or is it just because of the mistral's high speed and quick approach? Feels like DCS is not balanced as a PvP game (not a big surprise perhaps). It is up to the mission creator but making big changes for every match is like real warfare - there are a lot of surprises and it's hard to tell beforehand how a system performs. I suppose there are some threads about the Gazelle's flight model and such? Ka-50 and Gazelle are the only stable modules I have in DCS. I am low skill in both and would not take the Ka into a combat zone unless with very special niche tactics.

Surprisingly many old-timers :shocking:

Watercooled? :worthy: LEDs are the same color too :thumbsup:

I think Frag indeed is up to something with what he says. I had a bit of a similar experience starting with helicopters. Ka-50, impressive weapons platform. Advanced avionics, much Russian stuff, latest missiles - too much for me. Gazelle L model, old and simple. Learn what "A" and "M" are, flick four switches, ready to blow up trucks and APC with rockets and gun - is there a catch, it's fun! It's quite interesting that DCS has been there for almost a decade and they still hadn't done study level of the whole F-14...F-18 family, or Su-27 and such. The fun is somewhere else and TBH some a bit more exotic rig like Viggen or Mig-25 could be much more interesting... just because it's a whole new experience and mindset.

Pricing is very complex. As said above, there are different kinds of potential customers - how to maximize the profit from the aggregate group of them? I've seen ED justify their pricing only once and it was development cost = price. What the most are talking here is a different model, either the "fair price" / "what is it worth" or "how much can I pay". Everybody has a right to state their opinion. That is a way to provide information for ED so they can estimate also these pricing models - provided they want to take them into account. Also the price is not just $80. Gaming companies are a bit like airlines - they stratify their customers and try to sell to different segments to bring in sufficient revenue. I will probably plan to buy the Tomcat when it's stable, costs $40, is bundled with some nice maps or other interesting content, and we can see where it fits in the DCS scene and in my selected playstyle. ED is using different discounts and bundles to reach more customers and to sell more. I've never seen them go lower than -66%, looking at some public data from the past few years - lower than that you might get some obvious issues with brand/maintaining your pricing argument. CA was the only notable exception but that has been a bit of a sad case. I could see them going lower only in some massive once-in-a-lifetime deal/bundle - for example it could make sense to bundle and market pre-2017 modules to the Steam player base so they get hooked and can still painlessly transfer to the ED platform. About market forces - ED has competition and I can usually get a similar gaming experience around say 60 eur (most recent data). Just 30 eur if it's a single top-tier title I'm buying. There are so many ways to approach the subject. DCS is what I call a platform game - not a single game release or a franchise with sequels but a platform that evolves over the years and decades and has value continuously added to it. For me the very best games are like this - there isn't much competition here! Two of the cases are MMOs, the sample size is small and only in both of the MMO cases I spent over $200 total on the game - in the first case over a span of 12 years, in the other, the developer was bordering on fraudulent... One fun fact: An advantage of using Steam is that you can sell at different prices to different countries. (ED could also set it up on their own platform I think … not sure if they in fact have that?) A nice take on it. Obviously you do something similar if you buy all the modules and/or buy at the first opportunity.

Thanks for arranging and flying this! Was very professional, think the mission made a lot of sense. Some very competent flying - those landings at the start were mighty impressive! I guess the server enforces advanced (not gaming) mode for flight model + systems? Will read the thread later - a lot was learned in that match. I think the Ka and Gazelle are very different platforms. Actually all helicopters in DCS have very distinct roles - Huey and the Magnificent8 maybe are the two closest? An absolute blast to watch from start to finish... many very dramatic moments.