Qiou87

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.

I guess it is not just a question of equipment but competency to use this equipment as well. You might capture a fighter jet or a complex SAM system, but if your people do not know how to operate it properly, it is only ever useful for propaganda. Shoulder-launched stuff is mostly easy to use I guess, but a complex SAM system with search radar, tracking radar and launchers? Not sure anyone who isn't trained can operate it.

Well, ED will release the Marianas map this year, which has basically a few bits of land surrounded by huge swaths of water (I remember something like 1000km x 1000km). So you might get your wish. However, judging by many feedbacks here, many DCS players/simmers do not have 4 hours of time ahead of them. Many actually struggle with A2A refueling, which is needed for these long-haul missions. Also, even if it might be sexy in theory, sitting in front of your computer or with your VR headset for hours just to transit to the AO, then get splashed, then do it all over again... I wouldn't say that it would appeal to many. You are right, missions IRL are longer than what we typically see in DCS, and a larger map could provide opportunities for that. There should be room in DCS for this kind of variety, and more realistic/long haul missions. I believe this will be covered by the Marianas map and scenarios like what you describe will be created for it. However I am sceptical about how popular they are going to be ; not everyone can dedicate an entire afternoon to a single mission, especially if it is as boring as flying 500km in a straight line on autopilot just to reach the AO.

Funny enough, even if the 3080 has less VRAM, it seems to perform better than 6800XT at 4K in many benchmarks. Same for VR, the 3080 is superior to the 6800XT for this application. The 6800XT seems to perform better at lower resolutions against the 3080 in many comparisons, although in both cases they provide insane performance at 1080p and 1440p (probably more than what people actually need). For 1440p flatscreen DCS gaming, I am wondering if you really need so much horsepower though. A cheaper 3070 or 6800 would already be able to provide excellent performance, and you would most likely be CPU limited in many instances with either of those cards. The added benefit is that both require much less power, so they can be quieter and less annoying in the summer months (depending where you live of course). I'd say though, the best card is the one you can actually buy. At this game, at least here in the EU, nVidia seems to have slightly better availability than AMD.

I was going to suggested 50ft run in, pop up and CBU-97 ripple in a Viper. Tried it a few times against S-300 in Liberation, works about 50% of the time. Even if it works, the survival chances were also around 25%, but at least you only sacrifice one aircraft. And running in super low and fast is fun as hell.

I do agree that we need those big torches in the Gulf map. But come on, more desert? Don't you have enough with NTTR, Syria and PG? There are other colors to the earth than sand. And areas with more interesting topography (Balkans, Kashmir, Vietnam / SCS, Korea... many areas with less desert and also interesting).

Hi @Avalanche110, I saw you did not have any feedback here so far, it is a shame! I only played the first mission yesterday, but all went well and I had fun. If I could suggest a little improvement: it should be detailed, what conditions are set to "succeed". I would like to see in the brief for example a detail of what is graded and how, for example "airmanship": what is the pass/fail criteria? It seems that when I overshot the altitude of 25,000ft on the way to the training area (by 500ft) it decided I had failed. I would have liked to know that it was imperative to stick to 25,000 +/- 500ft also in transit to get a "pass". Similarly, I noticed that injuring the enemy aircraft but not destroying it is graded negatively. I ran out of bullets for the second engagement, the enemy was flying away with burning engines, I believe I should get a partial success for that (if it is possible). In the end he is out of action, regardless if the jet has crashed or not. I could have waited for him to crash after 5-10min, instead I used "knock it off", maybe that's why? No big deal really, just a suggestion. In the end I had fun and I will continue playing this campaign. It seems like the perfect fit for me to practice a bit of A2A in the Hornet. I also look forward to your WW2 campaign, as I completely suck in air combat in the warbirds, I could use the practice. Thank you for your work, really. I can only imagine how long it takes to make something dynamic and engaging like this.

Just wanted to contribute my 2 cents to this very interesting topic (thank you etienne for starting this discussion): I recently changed hardware and managed to increase my fps from 40 to 80fps in the Rift S, at least when flying in single player. The added smoothness really did improve my sensation of speed in the Viggen, one of those aircraft where you probably would feel it the most as its entire mission is "low and fast". However I do move my head around quite a lot to notice the terrain around me moving so fast, due to the restricted FOV. Lack of visual reference on the ground in Caucasus or Nevada does hurt this feeling however, which is not really "right" outside of high-details maps like PG or Syria. However getting rid of reprojection definitely helped with my feeling of speed.

Hi, I'm going to skip the obvious "just learn how to fly" response, that's not really fun or related to the wishlist. Instead let's look at those aircraft: - P-38: hell yes! I've long thought it would be a great addition to DCS WWII, it was widely used in Europe and Pacific (for the "Marianas" theatre as well), it's different compared to the other ones we have, yet it could be a bit similar to the Mosquito. - P-61: a bit specific for now imho (due to the exclusive night attack role) - P-39: nobody apparently wanted this plane in WWII so the US gave them to the French, Italians and Russians. Doesn't seem to fit to the theaters we have or will have, and doesn't seem to be very good either. - A-20: why not? It seems to be different, though again, maybe a bit redundant with the Mosquito. Same for A-26 although was very late in the war. - F7F: sorry but if we are going with a Grumman carrier based fighter I want an F6F Hellcat before this. The F7F never even fought in WWII. I was trying to see what the Germans produced in WWII in good numbers with a tricycle landing gear, doesn't seem to be any. Same for Japan. A shame really! You might need to learn how to handle those taildraggers after all...

Well the Strike Eagle is in development by Razbam, hopefully it will come at some point and in a decent state. As you say though, the EX is too new probably to be in DCS, not enough available data I guess.

I've had it on occasion as well (Rift S, no shader mod). I'll try to save a track next time this happens, I assume it is a combination of weather + wind maybe?

Stable should - theoretically - be updated before moving to 2.7 ("the clouds update"), which ED said it was coming hopefully in Q1 and after F/A-18C upgrades were implemented. So I would venture a guess that Stable will be updated in February or more probably March, if all goes well with the added functionalities from the last OB. With that stable update, all the new campaigns would be available. For such an innovative campaign, I guess it is also a smart idea to wait a couple of months (until it is on stable) so that the major issues are fixed. At least that is my perspective, I prefer to be patient and then really enjoy a bug-free campaign with no immersion-breaking issues. You can check the patch status here, but it is usually announced only a few days before.

Might be worth checking out if its not something on your end. 20+ guys on my squad play this map with me regularly, none have huge stutter issues, and many have 4+ years old PCs. I only set ground textures to low, the rest stays on high. It is a demanding map, maybe some optimization could improve it further, but I can vouch for the fact that all my squadmates are able to play it without so much trouble.

Thank you @Flappie! Hope this can get fixed for everyone in an upcoming update, it is a cool campaign for a cool aircraft.

Honestly, just set the ground textures to low if you have 8gb of VRAM or less and it’s fine. This map runs beautifully compared to the Channel, even though it is much bigger and its cities are larger. It runs just as well as the other modern maps once ground textures are on low and I honestly cannot tell the difference in the headset.

Indeed, I got a bit jealous in a 4YA server where a single Huey transported troops close to enemy bases, and vehicles, and took them over like that. In that case a single Huey was more effective at cleaning out enemy bases than some Hornet or A10 pilots. Definitely something I want to learn to do, the Huey on its own is totally underpowered but this capability is rather awesome.

This is a misleading statement, but it is wrong. I run DCS stable and enjoy the Syria map. This map was first available in OB, hence this comment, but they should have edited it later as it became available to the stable ca. sept. or october 2020.

With all due respect, don't we already have enough maps with dry/desert areas? How about a nice lush forest area instead, tropical or continental? Or a more arctic setting? This is not only DCS:Middle East, and while this is a beautiful region, we already have quite a lot to play with, with the current maps. Not perfect, but better than tropical areas or colder areas that are absolutely not represented today.

You cannot compare the wake of a "parade formation" for a photo op' with actual carrier air ops. There has to be wind on the deck for the air ops, around 30kts I believe, and in the case of your picture with really calm sea I would hardly think there is more than 5kts of wind - so the ship would have to move 25kts, which would generate a much longer wake I guess. Even if the wake is "fading", so not completely white, when coming from the side at 500-600ft you would see the disruption of the wake in the sea as a long pattern in the waves behind the boat. You can see it in the pic from @jackmckay, which has a more realistic angle and altitude as an approching aircraft: the disruption is visible for a while behind the boat even after the white foaming has subsided.

Frequency is only one part of the CPU performance, you cannot compare different architectures only based on frequency. Zen3 has a much higher Instructions Per Clock performance (IPC), meaning it gets more done at the same frequency than Zen+ (the architecture of your 2700X). Going from 2600X to 5600X, I had a 50% improvement in CPU-bound scenarios: multiplayer, supercarrier, and some very heavy SP missions (some WWII "furball" with 50 aircraft for example). Given the fact that DCS is mostly bound by single-core performance, you would see a similar improvement. Check your MSI available UEFI, but my X470 board (Gigabyte Aorus Gaming Ultra) accepted to 5600X without any problem after updating the UEFI/BIOS. I am very happy with that upgrade for DCS, now I can get a higher-performing GPU without being too limited by the CPU.

I don't know how/when this was fixed, but just wanted to contribute that I flew this mission and landed on the November taxiway at Senaki (I seem to remember the order to land on the taxiway as the main landing strip was damaged). November is parallel to the strip and there is an area to refuel/rearm with personnel and equipment at the intersection with the ramp. Worked, finished that mission with 100%.

In that mission (attack a ship fleet using RB-15F) the brief is very clear: wait for 07:01:00 at Wp1 then push, plan the weapon delivery to target waypoint Bx-8 for 07:13:00 so that all missiles from Springfield 1 and 2 arrive at the same time. Well, that trigger seems broken, because Springfield 2 just blows past Wp1 and continues to attack. So while I was waiting at Wp1 I hear "Springfield 2-1, missile away", followed by its wingmen. They all fired then stayed in the area. At 07:01 we hear the call to "push", and Springfield 2 confirms pushing. Of course they are already on target and actually their missiles have already hit. Something must be broken with their triggers. It is a bit of a shame, I could complete the mission, but half the ships were already sunk and the excitement of performing a synchronized attack was definitely gone. Also, I don't know why, but my wingmen fly up to 10,000ft to perform their attack, but this is probably DCS AI being stupid again.

@Silver_Dragon: Ok, I think I understand the point. I don't totally agree with the post you quoted (imho no map in DCS has borders or is depicted as being that or this country), however I also understand that I am not Russian, so maybe I cannot understand all that this topic means. I respect that ED might not risk their own liberty for this. @bies: whilst I do love the idea of more maps (personally, outside of historical Vietnam/Kora, I'll love to see something around China to have a different opposition than typical NATO/Russia we have in DCS), I think the topic here is just to refresh the main DCS free map. I would assume that the amount of work needed would be less than creating a full new map. Of course, if that is not the case (for example, porting the Caucasus map to the new map creation tools like those used for Syria/Channel doesn't work), then ED might as well try a new region. But if a refresh really is possible, and only takes 10-20-30% of the man-hours needed for a new map, it could be considered in a few years. It is a beautiful region and I don't think the current map does it justice.

I am not Russian so it remains a bit unclear to me, but how does making a map in DCS relate to rubbing the government in the wrong way? No one is asking to have borders drawn on the map, because yes, borders are contentious. But just providing the map, with accurate placement of cities and airfields that are, from scratch, neutral and can be attributed to either side in the mission editor is not a political statement. It just means the area is interesting as a theater. No one is asking ED to publish a campaign where you play as Ukraine to defend against invaders or anything like that ; just the map. I do not understand why this argument is valid for Crimea but not for Georgia. I would be happy to learn more about the difference between the two situations. Not that I want this expansion, I am just curious. The Caucasus map is fine right now, it just needs higher density mesh in the mountains, textures, and more representative cities. The great thing is that it would make all the existing content in single player so much better, even if it might require some small rework like unit placement and such. But this could probably be faster than starting from scratch, which is what creators have to do on new maps like Syria.

Only one thing I would like to add to the excellent recommendations : would you fly the Mi-8 once you get the Hind? I am not so sure but this has to be answered by the person buying it. Buying a module for just a few months may not be for you if you are more careful in what you buy. Of course it is the closest to the Hind, no contest. However the Huey is very different in its missions, it is a blufor, so there is still chances to fly it after you buy the Hind. Or maybe not, depends on you and what you want! Just some food for thought I wanted to contribute, both are excellent modules and you cannot go wrong with either of them. Helo flying in DCS is just a treat.