dsc106

My BSB2e is expected to arrive in a couple weeks, and these posts are making me nervous. How have things gone for everyone? I'd love to hear more DCS impressions. I have two 2.0 Base Stations I picked up... I'm gathering from posts a combination of (A) poor base station placement; (B) outdated firmware on base stations and/or headset; (C) first time base station users; (D) base station 1.0 users; (E) possible clear shell reflection issues interfering with tracking (black does better), especially if using dimmable LED bulbs or smart bulbs, or reflections/hot spots in the room. ? For those who have gotten BSB2 running properly, how is the DCS experience? I'm on a 5090 and coming from the Reverb G2.

Thank you for the reply. My questions would be: It was said the Caucasus/Jets only initial pass was a starting place to dial in the "basics". Where are we on that progress many years later? Is ED still in the basics? What percentage of the way to launch are we? Will the dynamic campaign launch with support for all maps, modules, eras? Will SP + MP Support? Will there be robust support for logistics based operations? Is a significant overhaul of AI systems coming now that multicore has been implemented, where AI can dogfight intelligently and be bound by the actual full fidelity flight physical flight models of each aircraft? Enigma made statements, accurate or not, that Nick stated ED is "****" at the game aspect, and ED accepts that, and focuses on engineering full fidelity modules - that DCS exists to preserve high accuracy airframes, and gameplay is second. Does ED dispute this comment? If it was accurate years ago, how has this changed? In as little ambiguity as possible and with as much detail as possible, what tangible investments has/is ED making to prioritize game-centric aspects of DCS world equally as high as full fidelity module/terrain development? What percentage of the ED team is strictly dedicated to gameplay only developments, to create a core environment where DCS is not just the best at modeling accurately, but giving players a top tier game environment for putting them to use? Is this a strong focus at ED, to not just be best in class at full fidelity modelling, but best in class in gameplay? What is the roadmap to get there? I understand you personally will likely not have this information, and I also want to point out that I am not trying to be difficult or antagonize. As a customer who was spent more on DCS than any other piece of software in my life - and that is before counting hardware investment specifically for DCS - I would be grateful if ED would be willing to make very clear, detailed statements on their goals and trajectory as a company. My hope for DCS is that it would be a platform that does not dumb down its high fidelity realism, but rather harnesses it with top-tier game design. There is a huge empty niche to fill here, as other platforms often emphasize game over fidelity. DCS emphasizes, currently, fidelity over game. There are many people hungry for a non compromise platform that merges the best of both worlds. Frankly, the game aspect is easier than what DCS has already achieved. But easier does not mean easy, of course. I am hoping that ED will take seriously what many customers want (and already expect) to see: serious investment into not just the core engine (performance, AI, bugs, etc.) but the core gameplay experience. Can we have confidence that ED is investing seriously internally in a full time, dedicated team whose sole purpose is to develop the DCS "game" aspect? That would be my hope for a future development report. I do believe this is a fair ask, and if Nick's alleged statements truly do represent the position of ED, I think it's also fair to ask that ED just explicitly restates its mission statement in 2025 regarding both fidelity and gameplay in no uncertain terms. While I would be disappointed if ED was not very serious about developing the gameside of the platform to its full potential, ultimately, informed understanding of what DCS' intentions are and are not - from the horses mouth and not hearsay - is honorable. I'll look forward to the next development report, and remain hopeful and optimistic. I hope this post is received in the spirit it is intended - a passionate supporter who has spent a wee bit too much on a product that has always done what it sets out to do quite well... and who is merely looking for clarification on precisely what DCS/ED is setting out to do in 2026 & Beyond. Cheers.

There is no difference. I understanding framing it in the inverse feels negative; however, this is a direct reaction of the recent Enigma video and a call for clarification. The things I have listed are the things that I believe many people thought were an assumed baseline given, not a wishlist. I do think clarification is warranted because for people interested in DCS for the gameplay aspect, hearing that the helicopters, maps, and WWII content I have purchased may not even be compatible with the dynamic campaign at launch, maybe "someday" is disconcerting if you have played DCS as long as I have. Someday can be a very distant day indeed, and purchasing decisions/platform investment are predicated on clear communication from the team and trust from the playerbase that they are spending significant amounts of money with the correct expectation.

I apologize if I am not satisfied with this answer... the DC has been in development for over a half decade. Indeed what you say makes sense when test-bedding at an Alpha state. I can't help but infer that this means "the basics are not done" internally - and thus that the initial launch of DC will be considered a first delivery of "the basics". That the DC (whenever it finally launches) will launch as Caucasus, Modern Era, SP only - and thus leave us many more years of development time for all maps, ell eras, multiplayer... and any other features that we are all expecting. I do not think I am alone in regarding the above as the "basics" - core essential components, and completely reasonable for us to expect at launch after even 3 years of internal dev time (if ED was allocating resources adequately), let alone 5+ years. But what is being done here to surpass community expectations at launch? Or will the DC launch like the "saved game" feature which didn't give anyone what we have been asking for: the ability to save and load games easily, at will, no strings attached, in the most complicated single players campaigns available. What I just heard here is that we will likely get the following at launch: "hey everyone, after 5-7 years, here is our basic first draft... it's EA, more to come". That the DC is going to launch in a half-baked state that many people might have anticipated seeing in 2021, not 2026 (or beyond?). If indeed that is the case, what that will broadcast to us is that there is very little interest, resource, and commitment from ED to harness the fidelity of DCS into the best flight simulation game the industry has seen. It will tell us that there is no misunderstanding from Enigma. I believe we need a transparent expectation setting, likely alongside a genuine and novel commitment from ED to a truly game-centric focus. The Dynamic Campaign carrot is more than just a carrot regarding the DC - it's an unspoken implication of the internal state of ED's "game" focus and an incentive to purchase modules now. Please, PLEASE tell me I am misreading this. Please tell us that the community, wondering what has taken so many years, will immediately cease to wonder upon launch and know exactly what we have been waiting for - know exactly where all those years went. Or will we get a basic launch that broadcasts "this is what we can produce in 5+ years"?

My concern after the Enigma video is that the dynamic campaign is going to be nowhere close to expectations. It has been in the works for half a decade. People like me have invested thousands into modules under the pretense that this is all going somewhere. If the dynamic campaign does not launch with industry leading leading AI, full logistics support, support for all maps, SP + MP, support for all modules and eras, many robust updates and fixed to multiplayer, good performance, slick interface... I mean, what I just said is the basic 101 requirements. My fear is that this is "unrealistic" and people are going to be disappointed vs BMS, a free mod for a very old game. It sounds like there is just not serious investment into the game side of this. "Development takes time" I am ok with, I understand this is a niche. But ED needs to be transparent here. The dynamic campaign has been in works for longer than most games, including games by small indie studios. I think an expectation that DCS is "close" to become a masterfully, fully fledged combat flight sim GAME exists and is reasonable. But... recent releases have been comically underwhelming. Comical, if it weren't so frustrating. The Mission save feature, seriously? I understand this is an old engine and will be more complicated to implement, but people have been asking for saved games for what, close to a decade? And what do we get, a half baked save state feature that can barely handle any complexity or cockpit states that feels more like a hack? We have been waiting years, and I can't just save the game in a Reflected campaign at will, with ease, no fuss? Or the Quick Action Generator, which can't even match the free briefing room? None of this is confidence inspiring as to what we are getting with dynamic campaign. If the enigma video is to believed, we are going to end up with a half baked dynamic campaign that wouldn't live up to 2 years of dev time let alone 6+ years. I agree that ED needs to hire a game manager and have a team that is solely dedicated to the development of DCS as a GAME, where the engineering team can operate independently and produce full fidelity modules for the ecosystem. The irony is the DCS side probably WOULD be more profitable if they actually did this, but there is a chicken-egg dynamic here. If the game side actually got the attention it deserved it would open up a lot more interest in module sales.

Surprisingly my performance also seemed better in VR

Love that you guys are still working on this, its a wonderful module. Thank you! Also a user request (prayer?) - your other modules come with some bundled campaigns and mini-campaigns. Here's begging for a Heatblur Kola map campaign for the beloved Viggen!

Loaded up and I too was blown away. Excellent, excellent update. Thank you Specter Studios, you are a class act. This map has come a very long way and this new update takes it to top tier quality. I'm loving it now.

Hi, first of, fantastic map. Likely the best in all of DCS. Really fantastic detail and a dream to fly low level in helicopters in VR. My question is, what is the performance optimization of the map right now and what is expected over EA? I am not trying to imply the map is poorly optimized, as the detail I am seeing here is best-in-class and the FPS I am getting (ie over Berlin) may be a natural consequence of such a fantastically detailed map. With that in mind, I am barely able to maintain 45fps on my RTX 5090 and Reverb G2 (90hz mode, locked reprojection to 45fps, ~17-21ms frame time over berlin with DLSS quality). Without detailing all my graphical settings, suffice to say that CW Germany is more demanding than any other map including Sinai, Marinasa, Iraq/Afghanistan, etc. That said... it also looks better and feels more uniquely detailed and dense. However, I also notice that the Syria map from Ugra gets notably better FPS. Of course, it has been out for years and seen many optimization passes. Is the CW Germany map expected to see further performance optimization with time (without a reduction in the brilliant visual quality), or has Ugra already implemented all performance optimizations that Syria has, and the lower performance is simply a result of more complex scenery? Thank you for any insight!

Vulkan API, if more than just a thin wrapper, and really implemented well could be a massive improvement in performance under certain scenarios. Particularly, for VR users, "rdr CPU" - which often spikes VERY high when a lot of objects come on screen. In the Vulkan implementation can get that under control it might half the rdr CPU demand. When you understand that app CPU + rdr CPU must be below the same MS frametime as GPU (so in 72hz native mode, app CPU + rdr CPU must remain below 13.3 or so) we can see just how important this is to ensure locked FPS in demanding single player campaigns or scripted missions when a lot of units come on screen. My understanding was that they have had vulkan API up and running for a while but it sounded like they wanted to push harder on the implementation to unlock more performance boost. Indeed, if Vulkan API can boost not only average FPS, but clear up rdr CPU bottlenecks, it could be a real game changer for many users - especially VR users. I really hope we will be hearing/seeing/experiencing more on this front in the not too distant future. It has been a very long time coming.

I just got this map and my 5090 at same time. I am wondering what is going on with my experience? Can anyone offer insight? Details follow: I upgraded from 4090 > 5090. Reverb G2, 3100x3100, DLSS4 Transformer Preset K forced. 90hz, 45fps reprojected locked in OpenXR. Many settings are high, but I have dialed in things like LOD, max FPS to 50, and dialed back several things to something that works very well for me everywhere. I fly the Huey primarily - on Marianas I get 12-17ms frame time on my 5090 now, usually closest to 14-15. Even the resource heavy CH-47 on Marianas free flight Saipan I get 16ms. Similar results in the most demanding of other maps, but usually better performance (so lots of headroom) - Sinai, Iraq, Syria, etc. I booted up Cold War Berlin Free Flight IA mission in the Huey, and on the ground my frametime is 19ms. Flying around in central Berlin, it hovers around 19-23ms -- and of course, when you hit ~22ms things switch into 30fps reprojection mode. Thus Cold War Germany so far is the only scenario (other than a reflected campaign with a ton of demand on rdr CPU when lots of complex objects come on screen) to hit my frametime this hard. I don't think my 4090 would have handled this at all! My question is, I heard so many people say that performance is great, but my first flight out pushed my system to the absolute limit, and over it a bit into 30fps reprojection mode. Yikes. Is there something I am doing wrong here? Or is Berlin just extra crazy? I wasn't even running a mission with combat or more units, or particularly demanding golden hour lighting & shadows. Just the mid day clear skies free flight. I was expecting better VR performance? (Other than that, the map looks absolutely glorious and is by far the best low level free flight in the simulation, hands down!!). Hoping either I am doing something wrong, or that the map sees more optimization (without any reduction it beauty and detail).

I hope ED can give Reflected Extra Early Access to this asset pack so he can get to work developing his F4U Angels over Okinawa campaign. I also hope we can hear more about the Zero soon. It sounds like it is "planned" for the future, but perhaps no development work has begun yet, so it may be quite some time. In any case, can't wait to hear more about this. I also understand the F6F has been in development for quite some time, but never gotten a proper detailing in an official newsletter, so I very much look forward to hearing more on this one and hope to see something soon. Maybe a pre-order later this year?

Hey, thanks so much for the comment! Just to make sure I am not misconstruing your statement - are you saying that you are indeed still planning 4x Kiowa Campaigns? Or at least 1? Only that the timeline is TBD and it might be a while?

Just made my day (year?). Fantastic news!

Did we just get an official Zero announcement slipped in there?? we know the Full Fidelity F6F is coming and the sentence makes it sound like we will be seeing the Zero as well. Would love clarification from ED! And to know, will it be Full Fidelity or Flaming Cliffs fidelity?