Qiou87

I am also curious how you would poll, since owning and using it are different things. I own both but I mostly use the Hornet for now, simply because it is more finished. Once the Viper catches up, which should take at least a year, then maybe I'll switch over. The Hornet has been on sale the longest, it was released a long earlier than the Viper, so it would make sense that more people own it than the Viper. In addition to that, people who already owned the Hornet when the Viper came out might decide to wait since they already have one 4th gen US fighter, until the Viper is further in its development. I am actually curious about how many ED sold of each module, maybe just as %, but I also doubt we will get an answer.

I am not trying to start any arguments, just to help out. If anyone finds offense in what I am saying, I hope it is not personal. Again, just trying to get you the most bang for your buck, and I am always happy to provide the "long" version of an explanation, including articles and such, if necessary. I have been advising people on their gaming rigs for 10 years on another forum so I am used to this. The Dark Rock Pro 4 is a beast of a cooler, you will not find any problems using this. Because it is so big the fans can run at a low speed, so it is very quiet. On top of that BeQuiet fans are among the best for quiet systems and I run three in my personal system. The boost function is automatic and is common to AMD and Intel, however they work a little bit differently. But basically: the CPU has a "base" clock, one that is more or less guaranteed. As soon as the CPU has a high load and all its conditions are met (temperature below a certain level, power limit available, etc.) it will increase the frequency depending on which cores are "loaded" (usually less cores loaded = higher individual frequency for those cores). This is a very smart, optimized, and for you a transparent process. The only thing you can do is, using Precision Boost Overdrive, to go even further by pushing a little higher frequency and lowering the power offset. But this is "overclocking", and it is not necessary. You can get maybe 5% more performance by doing this, but only when the CPU is the bottleneck. I don't actually recommend it unless you are an enthousiast and this is your "thing". The Corsair RM850x is an excellent power supply, and I would highly recommend it over the 1000W Asus one. It is certainly one of the best ones out there, and it has more than enough to power this system. I would also stick to 16GB sticks, because 8GB sticks will not be upgradable. I made that mistake once already (going 4x 4GB instead of 2x 8GB) and I had to sell it (at a considerable loss) not long after to double my memory capacity. 32GB today is excellent in DCS, there doesn't seem to be improvements to have more, but it is nice to have the possibility to increase to 64GB if it becomes useful in the future.

You h You had the right reaction to ask about it here. I guess this was written on the e-Shop page around the release of the map in the summer, and they forgot to update it since then. It was true for 1-2 months as I recall. Now I actually play a lot on this map, in stable, with my friends in MP.

SAM is basically hit-and-miss at this point, it actually performs worse in some titles (like MSFS). I am not sure if anyone has actually provided scientific benchmarks of this in DCS to prove that it should even be considered. USB-C on the graphics card was dropped by nVidia for RTX 30x0 as far as I know. It is only available on RTX 20x0 or AMD RX 6x00 series. For a CPU using max 140W, I'd stick with an aircooler. Watercooling, especially AiOs like this, are noisier and less reliable despite being significantly more expensive. You do not need a huge cooler for an AM4 CPU, I'd personnally recommend a Noctua NH-U12A if it is available, but anything BeQuiet is good as well. The only valid reason to go with an AiO watercooling on a 100-150W CPU is going SFF (small form factor). A standard tower aircooler has the benefit to contribute to case airflow. Regarding memory, the gap between 3200MHz and 3600MHz is minuscule and you would be hard pressed to actually notice anything outside of specific benchmarks performed at unrealistic settings. If the price difference is small, go for it, otherwise I don't see the point. With a G2 you will be heavily GPU-limited anyway because of the high definition. That power supply seems heavily overpowered, I'd stick with something of high quality but appropriate power. For a 3090 I guess 750W is needed, but not more ; Asus don't make their own PSUs, I'd stick with someone who actually does instead of a rebranded one (Seasonic or Superflower come to mind).

Syria is available on the stable branch since September/october 2020. No need to use Open Beta if you do not want to use it. Beta is basically the same for one month, then gets 2-3 updates with new features (and new bugs) until everything is sorted and they update the stable again. Stable might see 3 to 4 updates per year (and they all feel like Christmas because they contain all the changes and updates from several OBs put together), when OB gets at least 12 smaller ones., and sometimes more when small hotfixes are published. So basically: go to the open beta if you want the latest updates all the time, and do not mind some bugs sometimes. Also for multiplayer, especially PVP, it is mostly on OB. you can stay in stable if you play single player or if you don't mind waiting a little bit. There are currently no modules that require to use OB instead of stable, however everything gets released to OB first. You can switch from stable to open beta with a few commands actually, and revert back if you are seeing problems, there is no need to "chose". Even if someday an update breaks everything for you, you can easily revert back to the previous version until a fix is available. Some info in this thread.

Any other game, I'd follow this blindly, but given how specific DCS sometimes proves to be when it comes to performance, I usually like to test it out for myself - nothing against you. Best example I can give is the Supercarrier, to me the deck is very detailed, you get shadows from the ground personnel, so it is easy to assume the GPU is the only factor for performance there. However I basically doubled my framerate on the SC deck just by getting a faster CPU. My guess for this map's bad performance would be shadows, and maybe geometry/textures are too high on those houses. But i'm not about to play DCS without any terrain shadow, it's like those saying they remove trees to have smoother VR, sure but I fly low-level a lot (helo, WWII and Viggen), remove shadows and trees and it looks like a 2002 game. Sadly I'll just have to wait for a better GPU (mine isn't slow though) and hope for some optimization. Maybe Vulkan can help with that, it was teased for a late-2021 arrival after all.

Well, the new CPU (Ryzen 5600X) didn't change much, it is still very bad over cities. I guess this is down to graphics settings, but I want to highlight that I am getting good performance over cities in all other maps. Here's hoping for some optimization in that regard, I don't understand how Syria can run perfectly over 60fps but the Channel is at 20fps over cities with the same settings.

Well, since my new CPU removed a great many bottlenecks I had with the previous one, I actually followed your advice and bought the map (and the Spit). I'll eagerly test it tonight and hope it is alright.

Individual is 12EUR here (France), so 14,60 USD. Yeah, this is expensive, Netflix here is 8€ / month and Amazon Prime 49€ / year, so both subscriptions roughly equal to YT Premium alone. But hey, I get it, Youtube belongs to Google, Google is at heart an advertisement agency, so if you want to skip their ads it has to be worth it for them. At least when we watch the ED videos Matt Wagner is not telling us about a certain VPN that can help us "surf the web securely" before showing the new radar functionality or new weapons. Good thing is that ED is invoicing in USD so I actually can take advantage of the exchange rate (1,22 USD per EUR today), instead of the seller presenting the same price in both currencies and pocketing the difference.

To be honest even arriving high doesn't solve this for me. In the Charnwood campaign, mission 4, two of my wingmen get taken out by flak when flying at or above 8000ft. I also get taken out pretty rapidly, and there seem to be only 3-4 flak units on the ground (mission 4 as I recall). I know technique has to be refined on my side, for sure, but you can't seriously tell me flak from the ground can kill 2 to 3 Mustangs flying 250kts at 8,000ft in less than 30sec... Thank you Reflected for reporting this, and highlighting that there might be a small problem with the new DM. I look forward to see how soon they can fix it.

You have to consider that a major part of internet trafic is now on mobile, not on PC. Haven't found a working adblocker for iOS that blocks YT ads. And YT Premium is very expensive indeed, costs around the same as Netflix + Amazon prime combined for me. But yes, I have seen this time and again that demonetizing goes against your visibility on YT, so demonetizing is almost never done. Shame their algorithm for ads isn't better, just because you watch "games" content (like DCS World) doesn't mean you are interested in stupid free-to-play MOBA/mobile games just designed to grab your cash.

I generally agree, but most settings are GPU related. On the Super Carrier for example, whatever settings I was using, it was never smooth. Now with only a new CPU, same settings, I get 100% higher framerates (40 instead of 20) on the deck (even in a multiplayer server) which makes it much more enjoyable in VR. And looking at my CPU and GPU frametimes whilst flying the Channel (alas, only with my old CPU, the new one hadn't arrived), there were some "spikes" of CPU usage, and overall CPU frametime increase around towns. That's why I was curious if people with the newest CPUs had any issues. Of course, optimization is probably needed but might not come until Vulkan (so late 2021, at best, acc. to the newsletter). In the meantime the question is, should I buy this map and can I enjoy it, or should I wait.

Not arguing for or against the F-35, but other countries buying it has almost nothing to do with the plane and how good it is. It is almost always a diplomatic negotiation, about localization of final assembly, or some local suppliers, and trying to ally yourself with the country selling the plane. So many NATO countries are buying the F-35 simply because this is the new F-16 basically, it can do a bit of everything and its from the USA, so for small NATO countries it can be a great way to cater some "good will" with the US. Another example of that is Greece buying Rafales right now, when it is in a bit of a situation in the Mediterranee with Turkey ; you buy a French plane, you get more good will from France in case of escalation. Also: it is the only 5th gen plane you can buy in the west right now. Buying a russian plane (Su-57) would send the wrong message for a European country, regardless if its a good or bad plane, and the F-22 is not for sale. Some countries might just want a future-proof plane that will be expanded upon and maintained for many years.

Would you care to elaborate? I run the same settings on all maps, as long as I get a stable mini 40 fps in the headset, it is fine for me. What settings are affecting The Channel so much and not the others? I can fly over any city in Syria, like Beirut or Damascus, without hyccups. I had a lot of hyccups flying over a small town in the Channel though, like Dover already. Didn't even try Dunkirk but it would probably have been worse. So I am just curious about what it takes to run The Channel smoothly, if a fast CPU is enough (now that I have one), or if other things are needed as well. Again, considering the fact that graphic settings would be alright for all other maps incl. Syria.

It was only discussed, not announced officially compared to the AH-64 for example. But reading the newsletter, I only understand that BS3 is dead due to restrictions on modern military tech in Russia. If they are able to release an old Mi-24 Hind, for sure, a similarly old Mig-29 is fair game. But it does confirm that anything modern, as in probably in use by the Russian air force, is out of the question. I want to emphasize the courage to release such a detailed newsletter when some here might nitpick and hold ED accountable for anything as if it was a promise in blood. And it really looks like 2021 will be an exciting year!

I am curious about which CPU people with the heavy stutter have? I tried this map in VR (Rift S, 140% SS) and was tempted by it, except for the low-level performance over cities which is indeed horrible. But my CPU is not the best (Ryzen 2600X) and it seemed (running Oculus Debug tools) that CPU frametime were responsible for the performance drop in these situations, GPU was stable. Unfortunately its replacement (5600X) hadn't arrived before the end of the free trial period. So my question is, does this map still have poor performance with the strongest CPUs in VR (considering the 5600X I now have is amongst the best in single-thread so should be alright for DCS)? I will not buy it until I am sure that it will be playable... No issues for me over Syria, so I would like to reach a similar result on the Channel.

You make some good points, but a true multirole is usually not the best at everything. Look at F-35: it is most probably weaker than F-22 for air-to-air due to slower speed, climb performance, worst manoeuvrability, weak trust-weight ratio that would be penalizing in BFM... Same for its CAS role, compared to an A10C, it carries less ordinance, has much less loiter time and is not as well armored. Those are all trade-offs they made in order to make a "jack of all trades". In the end you might want to have 2 or 3 different planes in your arsenal and not just one, because if the enemy knows how to counter your only plane, they will destroy you much easier. If you have different planes with different strengths, the enemy might not always know what to expect. That's why I'm curious about the specific strengths of the Su-57, based on the video, it seems to be more geared towards air-to-air, like the F-22, with excellent manoeuvrability for example, and the air-to-ground would be more secondary (still decent but not as good as a dedicated A2G plane could be).

I actually fly in VR, when I'm in the jet I like to fly it, not look at my tablet or second screen or whatever. So yes, any in-game resource I can get to learn, I am happy to take it. But yeah, let's stop to invest time to teach anything, in the off chance that it might bring new eager players into our fold... And if ED invests time to develop features that bring more players, teach them more stuff and makes them want to spend more time and money into this sim, how dare they! They should just focus on what you deem important instead. I didn't actually put any of my suggestions in order, I am actually trying to propose improvements and ways to make it more "user-friendly" to learn AAR. You seem particularly focused against me in your pseudo-attack, trying to dissect what I am saying just to point out flaws. How fun your life must be... My postulate is the following: campaign creators seem to think that AAR is difficult because they propose workarounds. Real life pilots also say AAR is one of the hardest things to do in a modern jet, yet it is essential. Precision flying on a computer screen, or even in VR, is harder than in real life. I am merely proposing that, instead of "automatic modes", we try to make it easier to learn/master it inside the sim. Even the basic setup of an airplane behind the tanker so you can train doesn't exist and requires to be created in the editor, or downloaded, for most planes. I am sorry but this is extremely lackluster. I just proposed that, on top of adding these basic missions, maybe we could find a way to make it even easier to learn AAR. It will never be easy, but it can become easier. I am not a flight instructor, I just came here trying to make an improvement to the sim. But hey, I could also do it like some here and just grumble and say things should all stay the same forever.

Why wouldn't existing F-35 not be upgraded once all systems and capabilities are available? Same happened in Europe, EF and Rafale got upgraded to newer standards, they don't throw them out and build new ones. In any case I have more interest in the Su-57 in this topic, I have little interest in "plane wars" as they are a bit pointless IMHO. I just came here to learn about that big russian jet. That's just not true though: a defensive weapon is specifically done to defend. Furthermore, if you have a very expensive and complicated plane as a defense weapon, it can be very difficult to make it in large quantities if you get attacked, or even to buy it in large numbers. Sometimes it can be better to defend yourself with 200 good planes than with 20 excellent ones... And the needs in defense are not the same, protecting your airspace means intercepting for example, but in defence you probably won't have to deal with so many SAM threads. That is why I was curious about the design philosophy of this jet, it usually tells a lot about what a country projects its own role should be. The Saab Gripen is a good example of that, short landing, compact to operate on small roads, fast turnaround time to compensate for low numbers against a larger opponent, etc. Always interesting to learn about such things I find. Of course, a multitool can do a bit of everything, but all of us who do some work around the house can attest that a specialized tool is usually much more effective, at the cost of versatility. So I was just curious how versatile the Su-57 was as opposed to specialized. So as I understand it could replace all other fighters in the Russian arsenal. What remains to be seen is the financial operating cost: procuring is only one thing, I think that's one of the reasons the F-22 was killed off, cost per flight hours was super high. It is useless to have the best jet in the world if you cannot afford your pilots to fly it at least 150-200 hours per year to stay proficient and combat-ready.

I don't believe that it is true. Even riding a bicycle is taught, some practice with side wheels, others learn first on tricycles or balance bike... I find it funny that here many are blaming "lazy gamers" when in fact, the game should try harder to teach you the skills that cannot be taught in a book or manual. I do love the complexity of this game, and the learning, but we don't learn all in the same way. Again: when many people have difficulty learning something in a certain way, it is not necessarily their own fault and maybe that specific way is imperfect and needs improving. I can practice karate for hours and hours in front of a mirror after watching a few movies and I would still suck at it. Sometimes you need a teacher. With all the possibilities computers offer us, are you really confident that there is no way we can help people learn AAR? GR (I know...) was speaking about the fact ED is complaining that many people try DCS but not many stay and buy modules. Sure, it is not for everyone, and it shouldn't be. But certain things, like AAR, appear more scary than they really are because nothing is there to help you out. All you see is the top of the cliff, not the path to reach it. My own way to reach a decent AAR proficiency was weird: tried and failed in the Mirage campaign, tried again a few times in solo and got frustrated so I said "I'll just manage my fuel better". Then came Raven one and I really wanted to be able to AAR, so I tried again, a few times, and found that it wasn't actually that hard anymore. But I had a motivation in this case, and still I can AAR only in the Hornet so far (my other frequent modules don't have AAR capability anyway). Had the game presented me with a path towards learning AAR, I would have been happy to learn it that way. It can be something simple, like starting you in the basket and asking you to hold it in there for as long as possible for example (like a kind of challenge). Next challenge is to fly formation with the tanker, staying inside a certain "box", whilst a "teacher" is explaining where you should look and find reference points to be able to hold position. Next one you start behind the tanker and just need to fly straight and manage your speed, aiming for the basket... etc. There is plenty of ways the game can try to help you learn AAR without holding your hand or doing it for you. Just saying "I learned it the hard way, everyone else should too" is very short-sighted. In the end the more people learn and stay with DCS and appreciate its complexity, the more money ED will have to develop new things that we all enjoy. Staying "amongst ourselves" as self-righteous experts and purists just ensure our niche keeps getting smaller.

All modern jets start with very limited capabilities, F-35 just got a lot of flak for it because the program cost so much but also because these types of programs in the US are very open to the public regarding budgets and such, but seeing as it has many customers and will be produced in great numbers, it might prove successful still. The Dassault Rafale was also very limited in capabilities when it entered service with the French Navy (F1 standard) because they rushed it to replace old obsolete aircraft, same for the Eurofighter Typhoon in Tranche 1... Look what both aircraft have become now. No doubt the F-35 will improve its capabilities over time as well. As to the Su-57, it looks like a mighty impressive aircraft, but I am worried that this might not be the appropriate place to discuss it and actually get valuable, objective information about it (which I'd like to have). Some here just seem blindly pro-Russia or firmly against. I cannot believe the amount of unsubstantiated propaganda I read here in the last 2 pages alone. If I may, let me try to ask a couple of genuine questions I have to learn about this program: what is the target uses of this jet? Why does Russia believe it needs a stealth fighter, as it seems to me to be a first-strike weapon (I mean something to attack someone, to penetrate air defences for example)? What aircraft type will be replaced by the Su-57 in the Russian air force?

One crucial remark I'd like to make: not only do most DCS players have lives, they also have different backgrounds than fighter pilots. We don't have a trainer, we get training missions (considering the overwhelming majority of DCS players is SP only). Those focus on startup, take-off/landing, navigation and weapon employment. Most modules I own do not offer a dedicated AAR training mission - quite surprising for such a critical part of flying (and I say that without sarcasm, I do agree that fighters guzzle fuel at alarming rates and IRL need AA refueling a lot). So while it is easy to blame the many students who fail to AAR, I'd like to propose that we take a look at the teacher. AAR is not something you can learn whilst reading the manual. You need practise, but you also need somebody to tell you what you are doing wrong or right so your practise actually goes towards learning the skill. We need more dedicated SP training missions. We need an intermediate system, between "unlimited fuel" (which, as I explained and others have, is a broader cheat) and full realism. Something that forces you to join on the tanker, maybe plug in the basket, but is not as hard as AAR, just to avoid discouraging people right away. We need training missions for every module, and not just a voice telling you to join on the tanker and just fly formation and all will be fine. I actually managed AAR once I stopped listening to that advice. But until the DCS training for AAR is made better, I'd like to see people stop blaiming other players because they cannot do it. No everyone has the resolve to fail at something repeatedly and just keep going. This seems to be the advice I see here: just go behind the tanker and try AAR for 100x, if you fail just continue trying, maybe the 101th time will be the charm. Sorry, but that's 1900's teaching methods, and we can do better here. Just because it is a study sim doesn't mean the learning curve should look like the cliffs of Dover.

Repeating something again and again doesn’t make it true. Unlimited fuel means you don’t care about fuel at all, so instead of drop tanks you can take more ammo, fly in burner all the time, etc. Having an easy mode for AAR does only that, and as was suggested in different ways, it could also be a nice enough system that it actually teaches you basics about AAR so you can feel more confident to try it for yourself and not need the system later.

Depending on the stick, making minute corrections is not as easy. I have used an old TM stick, then T16000, finally a VKB gunfighter, and I can tell you with absolute confidence that a precise stick with less centering force definitely helps with being precise and make small adjustments, which is what is needed for AAR. Same for AAR in a turn, you need to put in a bit of rudder ; doing that with a twisting stick, instead of pedals, is theoretically possible but in practise a lot harder to maintain for 5min. So yeah, hardware helps. Everything is possible, you can play DCS with a keyboard and maybe manage AAR, doesn't mean it will be as easy to learn it. If you are so offended by a game trying to make life easier for its players, please write a letter to ED to remove the text in the top when someone speaks on the radio, remove the "ball" pop-up in the Supercarrier when coming to land, and of course auto-start and all of those. How can you not see that a task performed in front of a computer screen can, in fact, be more difficult to perform than the real-life task, and therefore providing ways to help with said task, even if not realistic in the strict sense, actually brings the level of difficulty of said task closer to what it is in real life? I agree that more urgent changes need to be made, more urgent features added. But it is not our task as gamers to evaluate how hard it would be to implement this feature and therefore if it should be implemented or abandoned. Just to rate if this, indeed, would benefit us or other players, were the devs adding it later down the road. Seeing as 2 campaign creators each tried to implement their own "workaround", I also believe a universal workaround, eventually helping to learn AAR as was proposed (excellent idea!) that would work for all campaigns and all planes would be a nice addition to the game core. I can also think about a way where just plugging in for 1-2 seconds would refill the tanks, in this case the "easy AAR" would only be a 5000 pounds/sec flow rate. At least the player would need to learn some of it already, but not fly in formation for 3-4min with the tanker. After a while, that option could be toggled off as the player would have accumulated a lot of experience already and be comfortable just staying plugged in.

Why do you say that when the Syria map also has a 10$ discount? I wouldn't buy something just because its on sale. But terrains benefit all your modules, the Viper in its current state, well... it is a potent A2A platform for sure. For A2G or SEAD, it is missing some stuff. I mean the Hornet in A2G with the new HMCS is just killer. Most stuff will come over to the Viper for sure, but it still feels like you are taking part in an active development and it shows (stuff changes with every update). The Syria map is going to expand, but Beirut and Damascus and all the other bases will still be where they are, there is just going to be more to play with. Also Syria on servers like 4YA is amazing.