Cavemanhead

What if the new SSD has it's own OS via dual boot? I have DCS and all my modules on a Win 7 boot. I now have a dual boot to a new SSD that will be using Win 10 for DCS 2.5 Will this work? I don't care if I need to download all the files, but can I still have 2 versions installed on the same machine with 2 dual boot Operating Systems (Win 7 and Win 10)?

At this point, is Win 10 assumed to give slightly better performance in DCS than Win 7?

I've got 2.0 working well with all my modules in Win 7 on my PC. On this same rig, I've got a 500GB "blank" SDD that I want to put Win 10 and then load all my flight sims there in Win 10. BUT... I still want to boot into Win 7 to play my current install and go freely to the Win 10 boot and play there as well to make comparisons (FPS, etc...)? Is this going to work? Any things I need to know prior to setup?

I'd love to see an SR-71 or an X-15...

After reading this post, I had to think to myself: Why don't flight sim joystick calibration GUIs have a place to enter the length of the stick which automatically harmonizes the inputs to a spitfire (shorter stick = much less response to account for length)? The user could of course override this and change the curve profile, etc, but it would eliminate one of the largest variables to calibration and allow a sim fanatic with the actual stick to have dead nuts on performance to the real plane.

Agreed. Flight from NTTR to Vandenburg up the coast would be fantastic...

3 cheers for southern California... Would love to be able to fly from NTTR to Miramar...

I'm looking to optimize performance with a driver update; the driver I have is ~ 2 years old. I'm generally not one to grab the latest driver... Looking to get a "proven" driver with good performance... Any recommendations?

I use "beyond compare" and its an awesome program for easy synching... Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

So, I'd think the BK + a Jetseat is the way to go... Use the BK for the supper low freq vibrations and the JS to catch everything else... Or can both not be used at once? What does the JS offer that the BK doesn't already offer?

QFT - Right on...

I think NTTR looks wonderful but it still looks like it could be improved in some areas - to tweak out the wonderful base structure that's there... My dream is that an ORBX style company that specializes in scenery can chase behind the already great maps and improve them to perfection! That would be wonderful.

Okay, so the discussion seems to be about map size. What about graphical features and lighting, etc... Are they done? I thought the map itself was still Alpha/Beta...

Although I love to fly the 109 quite regularly, I gave up recording any flights since the tracks would not play back correctly. But, I've done 2 short flights now and both appeared to play back correctly. Is this a fluke or did it really get fixed?

FM: The "way" in which the plane feels when it flies. It has nothing to do with how easy the plane tracks or how nice it seems to fly etc... It's simply a measure of how well the flight envelope of the simulated plane tracks to the flight envelope of the real aircraft. That said, I (like 99.9% of the other folks on this forum) have no experience flying a Mig-21. I have flown several other GA planes and I'd say the FM is certainly believable for a Mig-21. The only thing that would appear to be "off" might be a lack of intertia about the roll axis (particularly noticeable at high speed). Assumption is that there should be more inertial effect on the roll -- and even more so if the plane is fully loaded (though I have not tried that particular test). I think the original post is misleading in the phraseology, begging unnecessary questions of the validity of the FM updates. But, I'd say there is some validity to the inertia/roll comments and it appears Dolphin has said there will be additional adjustments. Overall, this is a superb module. Thanks M3LLC!!!

Config is title of this post. Q: Do I need to do anything? Should I accept the update or not. Sorry to be a Noob here but I read the post and it wasn't clear. It almost reads like if you don't have Starforce, then don't update your Mig 21 module... Please clarify. Thanks.

Exactly what I was after!

Will the viggen be released for 1.5 and 2.0? Or just 1.5? Thanks

When is 2.0 going to be updated with the new Spit?

Next Friday or sooner?

So, there will be 2 separate executable? Basically, like 2 separate programs? 2.0 works great right now, I just don't want to threaten that in any way. It sounds like the only issue I may have is if my SDD is near capacity and I get a massive slowdown in performance by running up against the capacity limit if I install 1.5. How much space does the additional content for 1.5 take?

Per title.. I have v2.0 Give me every reason NOT to install 1.5. Are there any reasons not to aside from taking up additional space on the SDD?

For those of you with both versions, which version do you get best frames with?

Thanks for responding but I anticipating a more technical/quantifiable discussion in terms of pixel densities, "Rift image tricks", and current video card technology, OLED displays, etc... Anyone? As a baseline, I believe as low as a 970 is able to push 40? fps at the required resolution of the Rift? And 1080 is able to go a full 90 FPS, yes? 2k x 2 eyes = 4k which can be done now with a 1080 comfortable on a single screen, but wondering how much the Rift would drop the FPS. And... at what point does a Rift look like today's 1080or 1440 displays? Do we need 4k x 2 = 8k to get there? Seems like overkill but I'm just ball parking. Certainly the VR manufacturer's are asking/answering these same questions as fast as possible. Just wondering what the real quantifiable data and roadmaps from GPU designers says "we'll get there"... Anyone?

I have a 24", 1920 x 1080 monitor which I suspect the majority of people have. Sure, if I had a higher resolution, I could eliminate some AA, etc... but for a flight sim, this resolution looks fine and dandy. How about for VR? What would be the equivalent pixel density required to push an image that "looks like" what I see now on a 24" monitor? Is 2k x 2 enough or will it take 4k x 2 (8k total)? If the latter, I suppose it will be at least another 2 years before the tech can drive that sort of pixel count. I've tried the Samsung VR (using an S7) and it has a higher resolution than the Rift, yet I've heard the Rift's image is slightly better, so there's more going on there than meets the eye (ha ha). So... When will we see VR get the kind of IQ we have using a 24" 1920 x 1080 monitors?