Private-Cowboy

Hi, I've to go overseas for work and won't be able to use my big PC at least till the end of the year. Since DCS does not run well on notebooks my licences are useless to me - some of them only bought recently. The question is, if they can be able unlinked from my account so I can for example gift a few to a friend from university who is big into flight sims but has not found a way into DCS because of financial constraints. Is such a thing possible/allowed? Thanks so n advance.

How exactly? Using some settings in Nvidia inspector? DCS itself does not offer supersampling as far as I'm aware.

I have a somewhat related problem. I like to use proper fullscreen because I can then benefit from DSR Downsampling. When I start the sim with a resultion higher than my native monitor res, the interface stretches beyond the monitor. The LAlt-Return combination works and puts the sim in proper full screen. However mouse input does no longer work. I can't click on anything, the ui is unresponsive. Can something be done here?

Near future meaning? This is a very serious issue affecting gameplay. Hotfix maybe?

Could such a setting work for trees too? I noticed how dense world seem to render forest and while cutting back draw distance it has a negative effect on the visual impression (hard edge where trees are stopping). I'd rather reduce the density and keep rendering distance up instead.

That doesn't matter at all. If you would have read my posts you would have known. I tested the same missions (instant actions mostly) with world and the separate A-10C with exactly the same settings and world performs much worse. It doesn't matter if I have an Ivy Bridge CPU and 8 graphics cards or a 486 and 64MB of RAM. The performance of the two versions if wildly different on the the same system with the same settings. You can't blame that on bad drivers or messed up settings - they are the same for both. I'm not testing on two systems with different settings. The only difference here is the core of world vs the one of the older A-10C/BS2.

Well I don't want to bash IRIS for example as I have flown and owned some of their planes for FSX. <But their system fidelity isn't in the same league as A-10C, it's not even the same sport. That's why I'm somewhat worried that the once promising DCS will develop into the next FSX. A host for mediocre addons form 3rd party developers featuring an old and unoptimized engine. I also get your point about tweaking and such. And if all DCS titles would require it would at least be consistent. But how can it be that the "older" versions of A-10C and BS2 are at least flyable why the new supposedly better world is slow and laggy as molasses? I also don't like world because it makes many things less easy. Separate dedicated A-10C and BS2 allows me to have a russian Ka-50 with russian cockpit labels and everything. In world I have to change the settings every single time if I switch from one to another. Not really an advancement in usability as long as you can't set up dedicated configs for each module. Take RoF for example. I can even set up dedicated joystick profiles and joystick response curves to cater for the uniqueness of each plane. In DCS world it is all global and that is as much a blessing as it is a curse.

As mentioned, maybe a few developers form Oleg Maddox's team came on board. They know how to mess up a sim badly (IL-2 CoD). Funny thing is CoD is being patched in the right direction, with DCS it seems to go the wrong way.

Well you have to understand that with a hardcore sim like DCS a lot of CPU power is required for "under the hood calculation" that you can't see. Instead of neat visual effects the insane system depth and flight model uses the CPU power. Both are simple to non-existent in BF3 so you really can't compare those. I understand the sims like DCS require a powerful system to be enjoyable. What I can't understand is why a developer would be willing to release an "update" that breaks many features, introduces a lot of bugs and is far less "optimized" than the old system. Is there any logic behind that that I'm unable to see? I understand the idea behind world, although I don't like it. Opening up the sim to 3rd party junk? Not a good idea in my eyes. DCS always was the most hard core sim but as a host of watered down 3rd party planes? But why release DCS World as it is? How difficult can it be to make sure that tutorials are working? That no new visual bugs are introduced? That the performance it not worse? I really don't get it, at all. P.S.: I tested A-10C in world and A-10C solo with identical settings. I will not disable stuff in world that I did not need to disable in the old version. Why disable Aero if the old version did not and never had to? Why disable TSAA if the old version runs flawlessly with it. I reduced draw distances in world to match the old dedicated A-10C since world offers farther settings in that respect but other settings are the same. If world cuts framerate in half over the equally set up older A-10C/BS2 and requires serious concessions in the settings department to get it up to the same level it is simply not ready. I don't run multi-screen or anything different in world. World is simply not running as well, not nearly. Did multiple reinstalls, tweaked the config and did several tests. It's a performance graveyard. And then there are the bugs ...

The stang is not really a carrier base plane. So in the middle of the black see? :music_whistling: Did some more testing with a side by side installation of world and A-10C. My god, is this world thing a buggy and broken mess. Wasn't this in beta several month? What did they actually do there? The list of bugs grows every minute flying in world and I really wonder if they had a meeting with 1C how to best release a broken mess and screw their fans over. GUI Manuals? Not available. Voiced tutorials? Broken and not working. Framerate? Worse to say the least. Visuals? Buggy Shadows were introduced as a big new feature in world. :doh: I mean, world was in beta a long time. Why release it now in such a sorry state? Iron out the issues and release it properly several month down the road. Instead throw out the junk and make you look like a fool. Is the team behind DCS in such a desperate need for funding that the pump out one beta for purchase after another and declare broken betas as final so they can concentrate on the next mess? My god, this is royally screwed up. I'm wiping the entire DCS stuff off my system now and taking another look 2-3month from now. Maybe the will get their act together till then. I don't see myself supporting this with future purchases.

Neither. Although I would love the Mustang I simply don't like her in this setting, neither geographically nor in respect to time frame. She simply feels out of place for me. And I'm not really interested in activity near the ground (like tanks and other vehicles) with a bad engine and terrain displays like it is. Up there with the birds it looks ok but when you come in down low you better close your eyes. :cry:

Don't get me wrong, I really like DCS and the insane system simulation it offers. But everything else seems more and more meh. Ground textures are bad, terrain elevation detail is bad, structures and ground clutter is bad. Short, the entire engine is rubbish from todays point of view. It is a deep and challenging hard core simulation but I'm somewhat spoiled by the sheer beauty and performance of RoF. Even in the wildest online situations my framerate never ever dips below 30 with all hell going on on screen. Terrain and weather also look and feel much better. Sure you can argue that the system simulation is not as good but do you expect a simulated autopilot on a Spad VII? Sure you can argue that the flight models in RoF are sometimes guesswork but documentation from the time is somewhat sparser than the one of the A-10C. I really hope DCS will get a modernized - well better brand new - engine some day to accompany the great depth with some visual treats and framerate that don't require an overclocked supercomputer. Heck, you have to tweak your ass off on a modern ivy bridge system to get stable 25 fps without much going on??? That somehow reminds me of another badly optimized engine ... FSX.

Tried that too, several times. I also never had the beta of world installed. First install was with the brand new 1.2 version. Framerate ist ... well not abysmal ... much lower than under A-10C and Ka-50. Also the bugs the messed up shadows are annoying. Why was world released after all? It still seems to be a messy unoptimized beta. Edit: Just to make that clear, I set up the same settings I used to have in A-10C and Ka-50. Why should I lower water to low in World if it was never necessary in the mentioned two. Sure I can lower everything to lowest settings and the usual answer is anyway that my PC is at fault and I'm to blame. But why does world perform worse side by side with identical settings?

If you're referring to adaptive multisample AA, it did not really help. Also disabling TSAA in game did nothing really. It does not seem to be a GPU performance issue at all. More an issue of too many things on screen as draw distance reduction helps. Maybe DCS World is rendering much more trees and clutter. But a 3570k a CPU too slow? Hardly believable. My main issue is that I don't want to reduce draw distances to nothing. Rather thin out the density of clutter and trees. But there is no slider for that. Config tweak maybe? P.S.: The cockpit shadows really look off too. Is there a thread about that bug?

Don't understand that. I use the last instant action mission to test different settings. In Cockpit directly after load I see 22-23, external view looking at the mountain range I see 18-20. I was able to push it to 28 in cockpit and 22-24 in external view towards the mountain range by disabling TSAA and reducing draw distance to 1000/10000/100000 but I'm still far away from why I used to see in DCS A-10C before. Somehow DCS World seems much more taxing but I can't put my finger on where. My system ... i3570k stock clock 16GB DDR3 RAM Samsung 830 SSD Sapphire ATI 6870 I have water on high and civ traffic on low and active cockpit shadows but other than that, similar settings. I'm a bit annoyed about the handling of trees. Is there a way to thin out forest instead cutting the draw distance badly? I seems to help increasing the framerate but instead of putting draw distance to half I'd rather see less dense forests. There are a lot of trees.

Hi, I have a very powerful machine and no issues whatsoever with Ka-50 or A-10 as solo games. But in DCS World I have noticeably lower framerates (about half of what I'm used to). Are there any new options that can be disabled? I really wonder why World would be so much more taxing. Thanks in advance.

Pulled? There is nothing there.

Nope as in real-full doesn't accept upgrade-full key despite both actually installing the same?

I actually enjoyed the russian systems in BS1 and looking forward to BS2. They are so totally different to any western stuff. All pretty much double dutch but fun to learn.

Ok, I bought BS2 upgrade yesterday as well as A-10C. I'm downloading A-10c atm followed by BS2. I undestand that the upgrade installer will look for an installed BS1 but why can't I just install the full BS2 installer and activate it with my key? Are the keys different and don't work with the other version (upgrade-full versus real-full)? After all both installers install the same besides the upgrade installer looking for BS1 and the full installer not.

Thanks for the help!

Am I understanding right, that the steam key for A-10C allows you to install and activate the non-steam version? And therefore will later work with DCS World too?

Ok, that kinda answers it. I thought the full version might install BS1 first too and then BS2. The only difference is that the full version doesn't look for a installed BS1. Nice to know. Thanks a lot! P.S.: How will that be in DCS World? BS2 and A-10C keys will be accepted there too as far as I read. In case of a reinstall you no longer would need to have BS1 installed to install BS2 if you got the update.

Hi, I build a new PC and want to start flying DCS again. I plan to buy A-10C for sure but also want BS2. I bought BS1 when it came out and loved it. Regarding BS2 I read that the update requires BS1 to be installed. Because I want to support the great dev team I thought about getting the full version of BS2. The other reason is that I want a clean install routine and don't want to put on BS1 first to install BS2 later. The question is if the BS2 full version (the one for 39.99) has a proper installer for BS2 or if it simply gives you BS1 and the update requiring you to install BS1 first too? I hope you understand what I'm wanting to know and can help me.

Hello there, I got a new laptop (primarly for work) that has plenty of power (Sandy Bridge i5 with 2.5-3.2GHz, 8GB RAM and a proper SSD). It has no dedicated GPU (only the SandyBridge HD3000) because it's meant for work and long lasting battery (fullfills both greatly). I wonder it I can run DCS on this system since I love simulations. I ran 3DMark06 and got 5000 points if that is anything to go by. I know this is not a gaming machine and I don't intend to play Crysis or similar junk on it. But sims like DCS are more dependent on a powerful CPU than on GPU are they? Anyone has tried running DCS on IGP with powerful system otherwise? Thanks in advance.