Callsign112

I don't have the Persian Gulf map yet, but if you have it, how are the frame rates on that map and does it support combined arms MP game play well (air, sea, land)? The PG map is another good sized map with a large low detail area, but I'm not sure how it is performance wise. I can see that my original question wasn't made clear enough, but I was sort of wondering how the different DCS maps will eventually compare with each other in terms of MP performance once they have all been optimized. In other words, if we could compare the same number of players using the same units/assets on each map, which one would offer the best performance? My feeling is that even though it is a much larger map than Normandy for example, the Marianas map will give better performance for the same number of players/units/assets. The Normandy map has actually seen an update recently to the OB and Stable versions that has supposedly improved performance, but I haven't heard of any report that MP servers actually saw an improvement.

I think with ED's proven focus on realism, suggestions and wish list items that are based on actual history will get attention. I'm not sure lights were a thing on most grass airfields on Normandy/Channel maps, but if anyone has references it would be interesting to read about them here. The barrel on fire should be easy to do.

As always @Silver_Dragon, thanks for the info.

There is an awful lot still missing in the WWII Assets pack, so it will be interesting to see how ED handles further development, but 2021 has already seen some major updates to DCS that have no doubt occupied a lot of ED's resources. As pointed out in another thread, some of the AI assets also need an update because of their age. So with all of that work, plus a WWII version of the Marianas still on the way, maybe we wont see anymore big additions to the Assets pack until 2021 Q4, or 2022.

I have never seen a road map for the WWII assets pack, but if you compare the frequency of updates to the WWII assets pack in 2020 with 2021, it seems like we are due for one soon. My guess is that the next update to the WWII assets pack will support the release of the WWII version of the Marianas map.

In terms of currently available assets, the Marianas map is new and they are adding more assets all the time. Isn't that the mission of ED in terms of building out DCS World? That was at least the reason behind my question to this thread. ED is constantly improving all aspects of DCS World so that larger more complicated battles/scenarios are possible. This goes for everything from core graphics, to weather, to AI behavior, to map technology. So I expect to see more assets in all areas, and especially naval. In terms of the Marianas map size, it is one of the largest maps in DCS World, so it should support naval battles as this type of mission/game is already being simulated on the other maps. I get your point though, as some of the missile systems modeled have ranges well beyond the size of the map. But even in Naval air battles, the same missile systems will still be available. In terms of land area comparatively speaking, agreed, it is tiny. But if we are talking about having ground units engage each other, Saipan alone has nearly 120 square kilometers of area, Guam has about 550 sq km, and ED is also adding more of the island chain. These are decent areas for ground units to engage in. And don't forget, those 4 F18's with CBU 105's could be facing other jet fighters with A-A, or separate ground based AAA units, not to mention Naval ships with surface to air. I think the Marianas map, when fully optimized, is the perfect sandbox to create naval battles, carrier based sea and land attacks, marine landings, and ground conflict on the same map at the same time. Or put another way, the vast expanse of water gives the room needed for aerial dog fights, and should help create the possibility of a combined arms simulation better than any of the other DCS World maps available today.

Really impressed with the Marianas map in General. And while it continues to be optimized/fixed/updated, I cant help notice that it has the potential to become the perfect map for combined arms MP game play. With its large size, and massive expanse of water, it should allow for good performance with air, land, and sea units on the same map at the same time. What does everyone else think?

Not trying to rain on your parade, and there is no harm in asking. You will never know unless you do. But its worth considering that you might be missing a small but important point in your own quote. In the case of your GPU purchase, the price drop was the week after. Amazon wouldn't likely comp you a further 5% discount had you already used the GPU for several months. Taking the argument the other way, you had the opportunity to get in on special deals that someone just starting out in DCS didn't. But you will never know unless you ask. Good luck.

Not yet, I am still traveling at the moment, but it will be my next prop. No I had not seen the racing thing yet, thanks for sharing. I would like to try and build a race course that weaves between the buildings on the Vegas strip. Not sure how that might turn out, or how easy it will be to make it entertaining, but I thought it would be interesting to try and push the Yak to its G-limits. Thanks for that @unlikely_spider! Awesome dude, I look forward to checking it out.

It would be great if we could have AI do simple maneuvers like roll, 4-point roll, loop... ect as a way point option to add cinematic flare to our missions.

Aside from being beautifully modeled, the Yak does a good job at making virtual flying look incredibly real. If I didn't know this was an ED promotional video, I could easily mistaken this as footage from a real airshow. I'm surprised I can't find any formation flying/aerobatics videos from the community. I am wondering if anyone has ever tried creating a formation type mission for a single player with 4 AI wing men? Does the smoke feature work with AI Yak 52?

It might also look more natural if they appear to be chatting with one another, maybe a thumbs up or a hand signal once in a while. But I like your suggestion.

F-52 Yak... the navies secret weapon

Good point. I never considered that, so thanks for bringing it up. As a Normandy map owner, I probably wouldn't complain about detail at all based on the Carentan example. Although it looks as if built up areas around the village that didn't exist in WWII are included, I don't know what they represent exactly, or what the Devs used as a reference. At least the principal village and its main road are there, so I can live with it. But there are other areas that could use a revision in terms of the accuracy of detail.

So after looking at your video again and zooming into the gauges, you were just under 4000m, and you were able to keep your speed around 150 with a slight angle of descent. Around 2000m, you level out for a bit and your airspeed drops right away as expected. Looks like you were in the glide for about 40 km or so. Cool

I really like that there is a Normandy map for obvious reasons, but it would be nice to see the Dev revisit the map and in addition to optimizing/fixing it, have a look at accuracy of the detail. For example, the DCS map looks like it might be based more on the village of Carentan as it is today, and not from 1944. And when looking at a Google maps image, there is no large body of water west of the village.

I was trying to be helpful by suggesting possible reasons why someone might get different FPS than you with the same graphics card. Saying you have a 4core processor isn't saying much. My point was, if both of you have the 1080 Ti, then there is likely a difference somewhere else. Just as an example, the post just before yours by JIMJAM with the Z590 mobo, he has a 800MHz RAM speed advantage over you. That means data moved in and out of RAM by the CPU is switching much faster. The mobo is a common unseen bottle neck for a lot of people. Then he has 32GB of RAM. So twice the memory on a faster mobo. But I also have 16GB of RAM, and my personal feeling is that it is not enough, especially when I place a lot of AI units in the mission. I am not disagreeing with you, something like DCS is going to be very demanding on a computer system. But what is driving that is the user demand for more graphics detail. I have an RX580, which in my opinion is already obsolete in less than 4 years.

The alignment you are showing is reasonable, but there are still big discrepancies with the village outline. If the entire map was like that, there would be less reason to complain. People are pointed out things like discrepancies with building number and size which I think is asking too much. In my view, as long as the map closely approximates the layout of each village with things like rivers, lakes, and major roads along with iconic buildings, we can't really ask for more than that. But the Normandy map has numerous locations that don't align at all. The Marianas map for example appears to be much more accurate.

Interesting. What was your altitude when the engine cut, and how far did you glide for? It would also be interesting to hear from someone with real experience in a Yak. Were you constantly having to correct for a nose down attitude? I'm assuming you took the flaps off once you noticed the speed drop?

I thought this was an interesting way to put the Yak-52 into a mission. Fly it over a mountain range in really bad weather. The mission includes cold start, cross wind, and low visibility to mention just a few. So low on oxygen, and out of fuel he is finally able to bring his runway into view. He doesn't go over how to set up navigation so I included a short little video on that below.

Yeah that 208 is a real beast, and it gets a +1. I can see how that would be a lot of fun in the mission editor. Here is another short little video of an experienced aerobatics pilot in the Yak-52.

You have probably already seen this, but in case you haven't it is a really good place to start for basic control of ground units. There are other YouTube guides out there that go into things with a bit more detail.

I'm definitely not the authority on CA, and TBH I never tried what your asking. But my understanding is that Combined Arms lets you control ground units while your in a plane. It also lets you designate targets for real players in planes when you are in multi-player. I did a copy/paste from the CA webpage. DCS: Combined Arms gives you control of ground forces during the battle. Use the Command Map to move ground forces, set artillery fire missions, and control the ground battle. I recently found out that this also includes naval assets too Assume the role of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) in multiplayer and designate targets for player-controlled close air support aircraft, or directly control armor vehicles or air defense weapons and engage the enemy. Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare game, or direct the ground battle from the cockpit of a DCS aircraft like the A-10C Warthog, Ka-50 Black Shark, or P-51D Mustang. But you can still do what you want in a way though through the mission editor. So when you go to set up your mission, add the planes you want with all the needed logic. This can include things like trigger zones where a plane takes off and does something after being triggered. So while your controlling the ground war, the AI planes will complete the logic you give them in the back ground. It would be great if Combined Arms users could access the mission editor from the F10 map when in single player mode. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but in the case you are describing for example, it would be useful to be able to enter the ME from the F10 map to make any needed adjustments without having to exit the mission.

The point wasn't really about speeding up the start up time of the plane, it was about speeding up the development time of making one, and to add a few more planes to the list of whats available while they were at it. I don't know how much development time ED would save, but you would think there would be some kind of savings if they didn't have to model everything. I am sure a lot of the time needed for development goes into the flight model itself, but there should still be a time savings. What got me thinking down this line was whether or not doing an FC3 model would help at all in a case where ED wasn't able to get all the documentation it needs for the full model. Like would doing an FC3 ZERO be more feasible than doing a full fidelity model? And then there is just the simple fact that the FC3 product might appeal to a larger audience if it included a couple of war birds as well. Especially as a product aimed at drawing more people into the SIM world. But yeah I never considered that FC3 might already be a finished product.

I would like to see a few war birds added to the FC3 pack to give it more appeal. Might be a good way to add a few more planes to the mix without having to go full click (less time).