The Falcon

all clear thx

Speaking seriously, I do not think that someone comes out saying: DCS is better than everything so those who do not use it is a loser; I talk about a typical discussion; huayra vs la ferrari, both supercars, both good. we simply discuss how and how well the dynamics of a given aircraft are reproduced or how a campaign is compared to another one, so not a commercial discussion. As a fan of flight and flight sim, I do not think in terms of product but in terms of passion.

Guys can I ask a question a little out of contention? Why in other forums, especially bms forum, it is forbidden to make comparisons between sim? between two things, etc. ..? I can not understand these rules. For heaven's sake I'm against stupid kids wars but if one out of curiosity wants to compare two jobs, I do not see what's wrong. it's like they'll tell me to choose something blindly.

in terms of fps, how much did you lose by switching to pimax?

i dont want CFT

DCS lacks dynamics campaing like we know what..

..and is beatifull

After the f16 will be the time for panavia tornado :)

If only they will implement a dynamic campaign like that of bms ... that day i will swear that i cry.

Prova a seguire questa guida per farti un idea https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202092 La grafica in un sim è importante almeno la meta di quanto lo è il realismo. Chi dice che non conta probabilmente rimane più tempo a leggere il manuale e premere tasti per azionare l'avionica piuttosto che volare e godersi la fisica. I video promozionali possono avere degli effetti post produzione ma sono girati realmente con dcs quindi sono veri al 100%. Se fai un giro qui sul forum (inglese) vedrai che ci sono altri che hanno il tuo problema è hanno chiesto direttamente a chi ha pubblicato quei video, la risposta è stata che non usano mod e giocano sul gamma. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3374715#post3374715

AMD drivers good? what!?

tomcat and viper:joystick::worthy:

For me it's all a question of how the next generation of cpu gpu will come out, I probably can't build a new pc before August. If for example I had the certainty that in a year we change architecture (gpu / cpu / ram) assuming to have a good vr between 2/3 months (or pimax5 +), I would buy immediately. I do not know when the new cpu intel or amd will come out but i have the impression that we will have the rtx for 2 years and assuming that vulkan could facilitate amd cards, the radeonvii would be a good choice.

I'm exatly that way. I've never tried a vr viewer in person but there are things that I understand like the fact that you feel "inside" and you see things in their real dimension. The thing that mainly hampers me is the chromatic aberration, I hate it a lot, more than the screen door effect, if a visor with filtered lenses does not come out I will not buy a pc now, I think it's better to wait.

First of all thanks to the valuable advice, especially those related to the PD that I could not imagine. I do not have a PC yet but when i take it i will take the best, like i9 and 2080ti etc ..I want to play vr and I'm trying to figure out whether to buy now or wait for better hardware. I did not explain well in the first question, let me explain it better. The graphics of DCS that we see in many videos shot at ultra (not vr) is very nice and i'm trying to understand how much the graphics worsens if you go down the settings. In the link that I posted, you can see that there is not much difference between low and ultra, which is good for me,(lowsettings=+FPS=good vr) I'm trying to understand if it also applies to different things like "textures in the cockpit and vehicles , civil traffic, explosion smoke, res of cockpit displays ", I'm particularly interested in textures, displays and shadows/volumes effects. For example, the terrain does not change much from low to ultra, is the same for cockpit texture? ecc.. Btw about the PD, serves to have a less blurry image or is it a kind of AA?

Hi.I want play VR(that is demanding) and i'm trying to figure out what the graphic difference between low and ultra is ... and by following this guide: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202092 I noticed that all in all we can arrange to get a decent image and that there is not much difference between low end ultra for many things. Anyway, the most important part of the guide is for me textures in the cockpit and vehicles, civil traffic, explosion smoke, res of cockpit displays etc. and this part is not into the guide so I would like to know what changes for the latter.

is it more or less blurred compared to msaa?

I havent a Pc to run dcs yet but i totally agree with the World/ weather/graphics/performance list

The plane in my profile picture :gun_sniper::bounce:

Thank you, very useful comparison. I would need you to do things like textures in the cockpit and vehicles, civil traffic, explosion smoke, res of cockpit displays, if you can. and let's hope for Vulkan:thumbup:

I did not know how it worked, it's practically impossible for DCS. Btw if you could choose another aa method different from the current one, which would you like?

Yes, that's exactly what I needed to know. I had understood that the term PMF also meant avionics etc. but I was insecure that the flight model of non-PFM was inferior or unrealistic. I asked thinking about the C-101 that if I'm not mistaken is EFM. At this point I think the only model with an unrealistic fm is the hawks.

Thx all.

Fantastic. however it would be better if in the future you could do the scroll with a touch sensor that allows you to do it by sliding your finger or raising and lowering your hand.

http://www.spec-tech-dmt.com