Beirut

A 4090? I don't have a 4090. The community is split! I'm in pancake mode and I'm still happy to have more performance. Some of the maps chew up the FPS and if DLSS helps, I'm all for it.

Agreed. I've always heard DCS was better with Nvidia and that most DCS flyers are Nvidia users, so it makes sense to start improvements in that direction. That's why I upgraded to a 4070. DCS was my only concern when looking at a new card. And honestly, this endless talk about "splitting the community" is tiresome. If we want 100% equality in all things, we'll have to play DCS on an Xbox. And that would be gross.

Looking forward to some escort action with those lovely new B-52 and B-1B models. Probably spend an hour just looping around them and enjoying the eye candy.

Looks delicious!

I haven't bought that plane, not much of a Mirage fan, but they certainly seem to be be giving people their money's worth. Now I know we're not getting 2.9 today, but I hope we get 2.9 today. Love to see the new AI models for the B-1B and the B-52.

They would be very welcome. And I definitely want the GBU-28.

The TFR will be good fun for sure. A few more weapons for the pylons will also be welcome.

You should feel free to add your props and helos. Yes please.

IL-10. I don't care if the era is wrong, I want it.

So... you're saying it's EA? If you aren't willing to accept bugs and wait for fixes and updates you should not have bought a module in Early Access. It's a hugely complicated plane and it's only been out for three-months. Unfortunately, patience is required. If you don't have patience, then let it all out in a post. I'll read it. I'm here for you.

There is always hope. But that hope is tempered with the reality that there are also always bugs. Especially at the start. The RB Harrier and Mirage have seen a ton of fixes and updates over the years. Given that the F-15E is the new RB flagship module, I'm confident it's going to get a lot of attention as far as fixed and updates go, in the near future and in the years to come.

Again, I have no issue with someone having a livery manager. if that makes you happy, more power to you. My point is just that storage space is available, inexpensive, and required anyway given DCS' large footprint. And if someone makes you a livery manger, I will toast your happiness. I return, however, to the point that there many be several good arguments to be made for a livery manager, but storage space is probably last on the list. I have a 1TB NVME that only has DCS and the Steam programs required to run it. No other games or programs. I'm at 550GB with all the maps, most of the modules, and some mods and skins. I figure that leaves me 250GB to use before I hit 80%, which I have heard is a good place to stop. You might be right at 90%, I don't know. In either case, 1TB just for DCS seems to be a reasonable amount of space and can be had for less than $50. And again, my point is that the whole storage thing becomes moot at that point. And if a person splurges and drops $100 for a 2TB SSD for DCS, then they'll have space for years to come. DCS, certainly for flightsim hobbyists, is a resource and money hog. There's no way around it. That's why I look at an issue like this, see that it can be remedied with hardware we want and need anyway - and that can be had on the cheap - and I just don't see it as a problem. If the argument is to have it because it's convenient or helps with some kind of MP issue, I'm 100% on your side. As far as storage goes, I think it's a non-issue.

I just get tired of grey skins. Therio makes nice CadPat skins for several modules - waiting for his F-15E CadPat skin - and that suits me just fine. I want the skin to look cool, and preferably RCAF, that's my criteria. I'm of the opinion that anyone who has hundreds of GB of skins is such a fanatic that having DCS on it's own 1 or 2TB drive is a non-issue. And anyone who does have 200GB+ of skins and is complaining about lacking storage space is having issues with reality. Same thing with someone who has a 1060 and 16GB of RAM and wants to run battles over Cairo at 1440P with maxed graphics. He's going to have to manage his expectations.

It is chunky, but it's also a big map. As discussed in another thread recently, DCS has a huge storage footprint, but at least there are good and inexpensive options for 1TB drives that the player can dedicate to DCS. I've seen some quality updates to the map and I'll be happy to see more.

I bought this map on day one and I really enjoy it. I'd consider it Top 3 for me. Half my time in DCS is just for the fun of flying. I find other sims to be mushy. DCS feels the best for the sense of flight and the SA map gives you a huge scenic area for all kinds of flying. And I like the geography of it, it's cool to have Argentina and Chile in the sim. As far as missions go, I build my own and the map certainly has enough variety to allow for all kinds of scenarios.

Yep, an F-111 would add significant cool to the sim. Along with the F-104, a favourite since I was a kid.

I understand some people only want historical skins, but my Ka-50 came with an RCAF skin and I was happy to have it.

There is certainly the argument that liveries or no, storage capacity for DCS is an issue. Whether it's seen an undesirable, unreasonable, or even unsavory, you have to have a big fast storage setup. There is no way around it. Fortunately, good 1TB SSD storage can be had for under $50US. And 1TB gives you solid breathing room. I'm certainly not against some kind of livery manager for those who want it. More power to you. But the "OMG! I have 10GB of unnecessary DCS files!" is no argument at all when storage is available, inexpensive, easy to install, and required anyway. As far as DCS goes, a hardware upgrade that costs half the price of a new plane is not an extravagance.

If it's an improvement that will make the game more fun or more effective to manage for you, then I hope you get the improvements you want. My path is a 2TB drive. But I have about 200 GB left to hit 80% capacity on my DCS dedicated NVME, so I think I'm good for another couple of maps and planes.

Just citing reality for its own sake. Why Northstar, you're a philosopher. I'm not arguing against the improvement. I'm saying that 10 or 20GB in the size of DCS is a small matter. Literally. If you have the storage, and the files aren't escaping at night and eating all the food in your fridge, it just seems to be a non-issue. I think you just answered your own question. If they change this fine. If they don't, then it rests comfortably at #3481 on the list of desired/required changes for DCS. I think the whole matter is a lot of nothing. Hence most of what is said about it will be the same, no? I'm not against a "fix". I'm against the idea that it's actually an issue when storage is, in your case, on hand, or can be had on the cheap and is required anyway.

I'm all for improvements. And if this one is made, fine with me. But I see it as a minor thing. Just my opinion of course. Saving space is fine and dandy. no argument. But if a game is in the 500GB +/- zone, then there comes a point where, if the player is "dedicated to the issue", he's going to have a 1TB just for it. We're the nerds and geeks who go from 16GB RAM to 32GB, possibly because of a single map. And then maybe to 64GB because of MP. We do all manner of upgrades for DCS. And as a worker bee I fully understand the value of a dollar. But in the grand scheme of DCS, investing less than the price of a single module for high speed adequate capacity storage is not much of a stretch. No, I am certainly not. I played DCS on a cold baked potato years ago, and now I have a rig with a 4070 in it. That's a real luxury for me. And in the grand overview of DCS hardware requirements, storage is one area where the fix is easy to install, affordable, and benefits the game as a whole. There are many arguments to made for this and that with DCS, but as far as storage space goes, we need it and we're in a good time and place to make it better for a very fair price.

Because it will always be imperfect. It's doesn't have to be kept that way, it simply will be. If they decide to incorporate it, fine with me. But that does not negate the truth that good high capacity storage is essential for DCS anyway. Anyone running the sim on a 250GB HDD is definitely a man out of time. I just looked on Amazon US and a 1TB Crucial SSD, which is a fine option for DCS, is less than $50. We're getting into non-issue territory. Because life is full of slings and arrows. And there's a point where you're best to just take a bite and chew and not worry too much about the small stuff.

I don't think that's fair. It's EA after all. Everyone knows the module is incomplete and requires updates and fixes. But those updates and fixes are coming. Patience is required.

I can: because it's an imperfect sim in an imperfect world. (Except for the Ka-50 which is just glorious!) When you have a sim that takes up several hundred GBs - 550GB in my case, on its own 1TB NVME - there is little merit in canoodling over a few extra GB over thisaway or a few GB over thataway. The truth of the matter is that it's a great big fat honkin' flightsim and takes up a lot of space. Just as we want to/have to have good CPUs and GPUs for DCS, storage space is also on the list of things to keep up to date.

Subjective, but still true. A 1TB Samsung 980 Pro NVME is on sale for $99Cdn. ($73US) on Amazon right now. That's pretty cheap for quality and capacity. And 1TB is chunky enough for a lot of DCS content. And good 2TB SSDs - Samsung, Crucial - are in the $150Cdn. and less range. For a vital component, that's not terrible at all. We're either at the stage or close to it where storage space should not be an issue.