Qiou87

Could be a wrong frequency if you use realistic coms. Make sure you are on the same frequency. Some tips to manage wingman fuel: - wait for him on taxi before take-off, don't take off until he is right behind you (on a runway) or already hooked on the cat with deflector up (on a carrier) - stay 500ft AGL level, slow (like Mach 0,5) and wait for him to rejoin before moving on to the next waypoint and climbing up If you take off 1min before him because he was slow to taxi, and then you climb with full burners right away, your wingman will use full AB for a while to rejoin and already be out of gas very soon.

We have a very different definition of what the word "soon" means. Also: DCS seems to be going in the direction of higher ground detail (see The Channel and Syria), not larger maps. Finally: this is a combat flight sim, not a "fly for 10 hours at Angels 38 in a straight line on autopilot" sim. I think people would much rather have combat theaters, past or present, than a low-detail full planet kind of thing. Let's be honest: with the power the Redmond giant put behind their flight sim, there is no way for a game dev studio like ED to compete. Only a handful of giant companies in the world have the power to do what they did, and that's fine, that's not what DCS is about. I'll take accurate flight models, VR at more than 40fps even with other aircraft and ground troops around, and full combat system simulation any day of the week. But if you are looking for those long haul flights and tourism VFR flights, I think DCS will never be the right sim for that. Also: this topic is for Ugra Media's next map, and what they should consider after Normandy and Syria (once Syria is feature complete, which it isn't).

It's ready when it's ready. No dev on DCS will ever give you a release date, because 1/ it depends on ED's own release schedule and 2/ however long you think you need to finish something, there are always unforeseen problems arising and bugs to fix that delay the release. In two weeks probably.

Hi neok, This is a strange issue. Since your CPU frametimes seem to be very high, it might be that your 5950X is not performing well for DCS. Did you check the CPU temperature when playing to make sure it is within acceptable limits? Acceptable means 80°C or less to avoid any throttling. I could also recommend that you try to disable SMT (Simultaneous Multithreading) in your UEFI. This feature is extremely useful for heavy programs like encoding, editing etc. but mostly useless for gaming. Especially when considering that CPU frametimes in DCS are limited by single-core performance ; as you have 12 cores, you do not need to have SMT on and 24 virtual cores. For reference, I run a 5600X and get around 10-11ms CPU frametimes (jumps a bit in MP but not by much). You should be getting around the same since both CPUs have the same cores (yours just has more, which is useless in DCS given the engine limitations right now).

If we are honest, this map has the most unique/distinctive airfields of all current maps. Incirlik and its "waterslide" runway, Beirut (just set the time in the morning, with the sun appearing in the valleys to the east ), or Ramat David with its very sketchy runway 26 (or is it 27?) due to buildings and hills on the approach. But man, what level of detail and love they all get. I look forward to the changes shown here in these screens. Performance-wise I haven't really had reasons to complain, outside of Ramat David which seems to be difficult for my PC to handle, the rest of the map runs fairly well especially compared to the Channel. It has easily become the #1 map for my online group of friends and we enjoy flying over it.

I don't see how fog would not get an update as fog is basically a cloud layer on the ground. If they've worked on the volumetric clouds, it should translate rather well to fog. The dynamic aspect (for example low clouds/fog in the morning that dissipate as the sun is rising) might not be there on 2.7 though, I believe the dynamic weather comes later in their roadmap. What I am particularly excited about is precipitation, and especially the fact that it can rain under certain clouds and not near it, or have a storm cloud with heavy rainstorm that you would need to avoid and fly around, and generally some condensation/water droplets on the plane when flying through certain clouds. I am not sure if this will be part of the initial 2.7 upgrade of the clouds (which I understand only has weather presets).

That video pushes three important points not discussed here: - the availability of the aircraft: stealth means more maintenance that normal planes, so planes are less available. In a high-intensity fight, which is what the US seems to be gearing up towards, having 10 or 20% more availability can mean one more sortie here and there, and in fine help to win critical momentum. I don't think anyone expects the F-35 to be developed only to drop JDAMs on non-suspecting idiots with AK-47s. - one plane type is easier to counter for an adversary than multiple ; for example if China develops a radar able to defeat the F-35's stealth, that party trick is completely gone. Having to counter multiple different jets, each with their own strengths, could be a much more difficult challenge for an adversary. - some missions require the generals to consider a certain amount of units lost to the opposition. Sometimes that target is just too important, even if you know 30% of your guys could die. In such cases, are the US going to sacrifice F-35s, which would represent such a high financial but also propaganda loss? And if they are not, what would you send to execute that mission if 16's, 18's and such are all retired? I do agree that the F-35 is obviously successful as it is, but it doesn't mean the strategy to have one plane type for everything is the correct one for the US to retain dominance in the 21th century. Same with their reliability on GPS, take out the satellites and suddenly most of their A/G weapons won't leave the rails. Wars are not only about having the most cutting edge tech as they are also about resilience, and a single plane type is not really aligned with that goal. To me it would make sense to keep F-35 and keep one type of multirole 4th gen++.

That's just a mistake in the product page. Syria has been available on stable since early october. They push OB to stable every 3-4 months, at that point both versions remain the same for a few weeks. Then they push new features to OB, try to fix the bugs... and the cycle continues. Stable will most probably get an update to the latest 2.5.6 OB right before moving to 2.7 in OB, so I'm guessing sometime in March. If nothing else than because they are "leaving behind" Windows 7, so some customers refusing to update might be stuck with 2.5.6 for a while.

I mostly agree with what you say, but 6-9 months is a gross exageration. You don't need to exagerate here to make your point, everyone know the shortcomings of the current system. But stable gets an update every ~3 months on average (at least in 2020). So the newest stuff waits on average 1-2 months until it is on stable (because new stuff is released over a few OB updates, and never right after a stable update). I know because I use stable. I actually don't mind to wait and let people work out the bugs for me. I play ~1h per day, to have fun, not to make bug reports. I am sometimes tempted because I fly early access birds like Hornet and Viper, but in the end patience is a virtue.

Getting an annoying bug in Liberation: when I setup a CAS flight, they engage max. 1 unit on the ground before RTB. I checked the mission editor and they are supposed to attack all targets within 40km. The JTAC is designating a target but each flight will only attack one unit before RTB. If I setup 4x flights of 1 aircraft they will attack 4 targets. I am using a late cold war scenario, A-10A for CAS, they RTB with plenty of ordinance under the wings. Tried in Syria and PG maps, same result. Other mission types (CAP, Strike, SEAD, etc.) are working as intended. I am using Liberation 2.4.2 (the latest) and DCS in stable release. Any idea what could cause this and what I could do to fix it? I get my ass kicked because the enemy just replaces the few tanks my A-10s are destroying. My only assumption would be that I use stable and some new script was introduced in the open beta, but I do not wish to use OB.

I hate that I love the Hornet so much. I keep wanting to fall in love with other jets, but I always come back. It looks great, the cockpit is very nice for VR with big screens, and it sounds really awesome from outside. Best sounding jet in DCS right now, imho. It is also a lot of fun around the boat, and it is just so capable for every mission... Great job ED. I look forward to the last few updates until it makes it to "release" status. Just know this Hornet is now the measuring stick by which every other module will be evaluated.

Why do you think he requested the winter textures? We obviously need this, if only to let creative guys like @Reflected regale us with well made campaigns in the cold harsh winter of northern France & south-east England.

Depending where you are, AMD is actually more expensive (perf/money spent) right now due to shortages, compared to Intel. This is also because current Intel chips are at the end of the shelf life, new Intel 11th gen is coming next month in theory. I wouldn't go for the 5800X in a limited budget for DCS. Right now, the 5800X is completely under-utilized by DCS and will perform the same as a 5600X. Going for an Intel i5-10600K would also be a solid backup if it is cheaper and easier to find than a 5600X. Single core performance is the most important point for DCS right now, and even if/when ED manages to utilize more cores, having 6 cores should be plenty considering DCS runs fine on (mostly) a single core right now... The 5800X has a few issues, because it has 8 cores on a single CCX it tends to get very hot compared to 5600X or 5900X (both of which only have 6 cores active per CCX). A 5600X or 10600K would allow you to go for a much cheaper aircooling setup, with less noise and less maintenance issues compared to an AiO watercooling. AiOs look nice but they are a pain to install, a source of additional noise (pump + airbubbles) and worries down the road (liquid evaporating, pump failing, leaks, etc.). A nice aircooling from Noctua or BeQuiet for example can work for a decade without giving you any problems, and there is only a single mechanical component to look out for (the fan motor). If you go for an AMD Zen3, I don't see why you couldn't go for a B550 board, they are essentially the same as X570 for normal gaming except for the passive cooling - X570 boards have an active fan which will most definitely get noisy over time. I like the B550-A PRO from MSI for a nice feature set at a reasonable price. My final advice would be to go for a high-quality but less powerful PSU. The 3070 uses roughly 250W, so you don't need a 850W beast for that. A 650W would already be plenty enough for such a build, but pick a high-quality unit (Seasonic Focus GX or Corsair RMx for example). The rest is fine, though the Samsung 980 Pro is probably overpowered and I'd get a 1TB drive instead (DCS alone takes up so much space!!), like a 970 EVO. It is nice to have a fast NVMe drive but the real-world difference in gaming between a good NVMe drive and an uber-fast one is very small - the price gap is large though. It only really impacts loading times but who can really tell if their game is loading in 5,2sec instead of 5,8sec?

For the Amiens prison to make sense as a scenario, don't we need timer-fused bombs and ricochet physics as well? The Mosquito attack on that prison was performed that way (low level, bombs on timers ricocheting on the frozen ground). Otherwise it is damn-near impossible to hit precisely at the base of the walls with just impact fuses. I do find this idea totally sexy though, especially with the Mosquito coming this year.

Why are you mixing everything up? Ugra Media is the developer of Syria. They did not promise anything, when the map released last summer, they stated if sales were good enough they would consider to add Cyprus. This was not a promise, just a "hope" - which you can choose not to believe, that is fair. Since then, later in 2020, they confirmed that they were in fact expanding the Syria map with Cyprus and more bases in Turkey as well. And we have been able to see Cyprus is already WIP because Wags flew over it in his last Hornet videos on Youtube. In DCS time I think this is actually very fast. ED also shared a screen of the final map area of Syria to show what we could expect from this expansion, especially all airports and such. Call it what you want, but this final version of Syria is anything but small, it takes a while to fly through it. Same with the Persian gulf, you can fly for a while in a straight line. It doesn't mean the technology is necessarily there to represent everything we hope/dream of in DCS, for sure. But I really don't see how your misleading statements are helping in any way here.

Thank you for your feedback. Did you do a proper driver cleaning when switching from nVidia to AMD? It could also be one of the reasons for poor performance. Regarding power consumption, the new high-end cards consume a lot more power. RTX3080 will easily exceed 300W under load, RTX3090 even worse (350W), with spikes over 450W for both. A friend of mine with a quality 650W PSU had shutdowns under load with a 3080 due to those... So yeah, the new cards are hungry.

Task Force Challenger was a big disappointment for me. Not very challenging, but not interesting either. It was made at a time where the Hornet couldn't do much, and as such you don't actually learn so much. To start I'd think Rising Squall is the better bet, it seems to be especially geared towards people not overly confident in the jet. Serpent's Head 1 & 2 are fun and not too challenging. I'd have no issue recommending you to play them afterwards. Raven One is "realistic", but I didn't find it particularly hard to complete successfully. You need to know how to use guided bombs, mavericks and such. But AAR is optional (you will need to manage your fuel carefully if you don't AAR though). If you know how to use the jet, you can complete almost all missions the first time, no need to be a brilliant aviator... Missions in Raven One can be longer, more similar perhaps to real-life. I believe that it can be tackled without issue once you have completed the previous three. Haven't played Operation Pontus yet, but the fact you need to use the mission editor to plan your missions can be a bit overwhelming at first I guess. Aside from that it doesn't seem more complicated than the others regarding what you will have to do inside the cockpit.

It could be your system RAM. I am not saying it needs more, but I certainly see DCS use/reserve more. On my system, just freeflight in Syria (Reverb G2 VR) FPSVR will report 26GB of RAM used (out of 32GB). I could confirm this using the system performance monitor (integrated in W10). So with 24GB maybe you are limited? Also: I had to use "low" terrain textures, otherwise I would get stutter (it could be due to VRAM in this case, but I am not sure so don't quote me on that, I only have 8GB of VRAM). Doesn't look to bad on low. Try setting the ground textures to low, it could be the reason it is "unplayable" for you. I always get very playable results on this map, in multiplayer and heavy scenarios with lots of units, and I have a much slower GFX card than yours.

Yes, i agree, I have seen the same benchmarks. Ampere seem to perform better than RDNA2 at higher resolutions, and in the end that is mostly what we want in VR for example. I have also seen specific VR benchmarks on a number of games that showed the same (Ampere > RDNA2). My only concern with VRAM is to not be limited, like I am now, to low terrain textures in Syria or to have stutter in the Channel map when close to buildings. I am personnally not sure about what is the best choice for DCS, I am not coming here with any preconceived idea, I am genuinely trying to gather information and help me decide if I should grab the 3080 or 6800XT when one of them becomes available. One day I read something pushing me towards the AMD card, the next is pushing for nVidia... that's the problem when cards are unavailable in large numbers, you start to think about it too much because you have too much time on your hands.

In the end you have to find what works for you ; 50% (76% effective) is great for me, much better than my Rift S with 140% SS (real) and similar smoothness. There is some weird stuff going on there with WMR and SteamVR, for sure. I just wanted to point out that 100% in SteamVR might not be the ultimate goal if it is already over the headset's "optimal" resolution. I tend to value smoothness more than pure graphics, but we each have our preferences.

Check with FPSVR but for me 100% SS in SteamVR is not 100% headset resolution, it is applying something like 40% supersampling by default. I lowered SteamVR Supersampling to 50% and FPSVR shows me 76% of supersampling. So to run the headset at true 100% you might need to lower your supersampling. In the end what matters is what you can see. Even at this 50% setting (76% real), everything looks crisp and sharp, and I get 45fps stable with a meager 2070S. I would be surprised if your 6800XT cannot run the headset at its true 100% resolution (which would be a lower SteamVR setting than 100%, maybe like 75%?). The card uses around 320W at the max, why would you need a 1000W PSU for that? Even if you have a very hungry Core i9 processor, a 750/850W PSU will be enough.

I would be very thankful if you can elaborate on this, I was considering the 6800/XT for my G2 as an upgrade to the 2070S I currently have. I think many people consider those over the 3080 for DCS due to the VRAM, and so few of those Radeon 6000 cards are around that it is difficult to get accurate feedbacks about them in DCS.

I think it would be safer to ask for "Resizable BAR", which is universal (nVidia will implement it, Intel probably). "Smart Access Memory" is just AMD's commercial name for it. If you read about what it does, though, the benefits seem to vary a lot from one game engine to the next. In this case I trust ED's developers to know if their game engine can benefit. If it doesn't, and there is no way to make it take advantage, why should they push for it? It would be interesting for someone with DCS World, a Ryzen 5000 CPU and a Radeon 6000 GPU to test the benefits for SAM right now - after all it doesn't need support to be enabled, you can turn it on with those components and just compare the performance. One thing I noted in this review of SAM: (source:TechPowerUp) Since we are CPU bound in so many scenarios, increasing CPU overhead does not seem like a benefit for DCS. But I think the devs are better placed to check this than we are.

Hi @Avalanche110, No need to thank me, I am just happy to help. I made another note: I believe you write "2v1" in reverse in the descriptions, normally the first number is your side, and the second is the opposite side. So I went in a "2v1" expecting to fight with my wingman against 1 aircraft. It was a surprise to have 2 bogeys and to fight alone. In this case I believe the correct writing would be "1v2". I passed all cannon stages without problems, now that I know what is expected I can get a pass for all of them. I will try to save a track file next time to share with you. I look forward to your next updates!

Maps. Maps bring fun for every module you already own and fly. Syria is amazing, Normandy is beautiful to fly that 190 or those helos... +1 for learning and enjoying the modules you have. But you can enjoy them even more if you fly them in different places. Also, if you fly the Hornet regularly, get the Supercarrier, and then get Raven One (paid campaign). This campaign is next-level when it comes to single player immersion, and the SC is just incredible if you are regularly flying carrier ops.