voodooman

i found good settings for my system. GTX1070 / 3570K@4.2 / 16Gram constant 60fps and smooth track ir panning and overall gameplay. NVIDIA CONTROL PANEL: SINCE DCS VERSION 2.1.1.11317.285 ALL NVIDIA CONTROL PANEL SETTINGS DEFAULT. NVIDIA DRIVER VERSION 388.13 IN GAME: - textures = high - terrain textures = high - water = high - visib range = ultra (less frequent loading from the disk?, 8gb graphics memory with 1070 can handle it fine, mine take about 6.5 gigs with these settings) - heatblur = off - Shadows = Medium (this is new for 2.1.1) finally i can have cockpit shadows on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - resolution = 1920x1080 - res.cockpit disp = 1024 every frame(!) (<-so that every frame in all buffers is the same) - MSAA = 2x - lens effect = none - hrd = off - deferred shading = on - Grass 400 - trees 15000 - preload 150000 - chimney density 4 - gamma (what ever you want, no effect on permormance, i use 2.1) - anisotropic filtering = off - terrain object shadows = flat - cockpit global illlumination = off -disable aero = on -vsync = on -full screen = on -scale gui = off -mirrors = off edit . added my resolution edit 2. updated for june 2 patch and added mirrors settings june 2nd patch. noticed that i was able to crank up msaa and anisotropic filtering without dropping below 60 fps too often. shadows however if even on low instead of flat, still gets me frequent drops below 60. edit 3. back to original settings with msaa and aniso. seems to be only way to have as little hick up's as possible. raising msaa and aniso does not affect fps that much, gpu clocks run higher and that kind of balances it....but...much more little stutters and lagging. edit 4. added afterburner monitor graphs of 30 min sortie @burning skies. post 15: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3159471&postcount=15 im very happy how it plays now, all graphs are very flat and gameplay is smooth. ofcourse online is easier on the machine, but thats what i really care about anyway. edit 5. Cockpit shadows can be on medium with these setting and still stay above 60 fps! actually i can set aniso to 16 and still stay above 60 but i get very slight stutter (rarely!) with it on so i left it off for now. it's coming together nicely this map, good job ed, thank you!!!! additional note: i have my fov restricted to 96, i know it helps little with fps so with the default 140 fov you might drop below 60. edit 6. updated settings for 2.1.1.9459.269. added MFAA enabled for nvidia control panel edit 7. updated settings for 2.1.1.11317.385 Default Nvidia Control Panel settings driver version 388.13

try deferred shading on but MSAA off. no corruption in skins for me that way. for me it seems that MSAA and deferred shading together produces these artifacts, not the deferred shading alone. I could be wrong as i havent tested thoroughly enough to say for sure, but for now it seems like that for me.

I wonder how you got DSR working? any form of AA trough nvidia controlpanel doesn't work for me, and some others. not MSAA or DRS. are you absolutely sure that it is working for you. 2x is hard to notice the difference sometimes...

+1 Neither can I get any form of AA working trough Nvidia controlpanel. MSAA or DRS supersampling.

please (pretty please!!) remember to untick the "use these settings for all missions" (gameplay tab in options) when you make the mission. if this is not done, user view settings (server.lua) dont work for clients. this is important to anyone using peter_p's realsize head mod, or otherwise modded head/neck size OR restricted fov. i have my fov restricted to 96deg (server.lua) and default view set to 82deg (snapviews.lua), and i have accustomed to basically just switch between those 2 (zoom out/normal zoom) unless im zooming to spot. 96 fov i do my flying and switch to 82 for shooting. it is extremely annoying as i instictively hit "zoom out" button after merge etc. situations and get that ridiculous 140 fov as that is the default max fov in server.lua (or what ever settings the mission maker has in his game). This is currently the situation in acg servers mission. for me 96 dergrees is maximum fov before image distortion starts to happen (fishbowl effect). Thank YOU!!

please (pretty please!!) remember to untick the "use these settings for all missions" (gameplay tab in options) when you make the mission. if this is not done, user view settings (server.lua) dont work for clients. this is important to anyone using peter_p's realsize head mod, or otherwise modded head/neck size OR restricted fov. i have my fov restricted to 96deg (server.lua) and default view set to 82deg (snapviews.lua), and i have accustomed to basically just switch between those 2 (zoom out/normal zoom) unless im zooming to spot. 96 fov i do my flying and switch to 82 for shooting. it is extremely annoying as i instictively hit "zoom out" button after merge etc. situations and get that ridiculous 140 fov as that is the default max fov in server.lua (or what ever settings the mission maker has in his game). This is currently the situation in acg servers mission. for me 96 dergrees is maximum fov before image distortion starts to happen (fishbowl effect). Thank YOU!!

i dont, but i also DONT think the P-51 should be on par with the 109. All I want against 109, is a chance to take advantage of good decision made during combat, ie extending at the right moment. If you cant take the upperhand in time against 109, you should extend, and have a chance with that decision (hence the plea for slightly less drag). but if you stupidly decide to remain in the fight that you have allready "lost", you should pay the price for it and eat the dirt. or take a huge risk and try to take the fight to scissors or something similar, but even then have a small chance (hence the plea for few extra minutes at 67") to get the upperhand back to your self, BUT understanding that it IS a huge gamble that has odds against you. Ps. sry for the editing part, wanted to add something and accidentally deleted that 190 part. /:

the problem with 72" i think would be that it would move the balance too much in favor for P-51 (mainly against the Dora). i think the pony would be perfect with tiny bit less drag (like 5-7 kph faster at sea level) and a bit more durability for the engine at 67" (like 3-5 minutes more at full power in a medium speed turn fight). this, i feel, would be enough to leave the P-51 slightly less (but less enough perhaps?) in disadvantage when decented to the floor and to be about to start the slow fight (scissors etc). or to give a proper chance to extend if(!) decision to do so was made in time. at the moment when you have slowly decented to the deck, you're allready overheated, and in energy trap. or attemp to extend, even when decision has been made in time, is next to impossible. this, i can understand is very frustrating to the pony jocks. but could be resolved with very little adjustement of the performance values, while still remaining within historical data. but anything more imo, would ruin the the balance of the planeset (both axis and allies) which ED has put so much thought in (every plane is unique, and has it's own advantages). this is my impresion i have got from flying the pony aswell as it's adversaries regulary in mp.

if the test results land in the middle of historical data, it means there's room for slight increase in the performance, while still staying "historically accurate", so i dont see why not? i mean the pony pilots are allmost completely absent from the mp scenario nowdays, and people fly the bird only if no spits are available if even then(there are few exeptions like solty and few other mustang enthusiasts). and after the european playing hours, the wwii action is minimal meaning our american brothers are not that much into the game anymore. it wasnt like this before. if a slight(!) increase in the performance would get peeps to fly the bird again, it would be beneficial to everyone. after all, all the data that the devs have vary, and sometimes even contradict depending the source. there is enough room to interpret the data one way or another. so in the end it's a choice made by the devs, what is right for DCS. and, "historically accurate" is a term i dislike, especially when talking about replicas of complex machinery. a mustang performing little better or little worse would be as much "historically accurate" as the one we have now, because there were variance in their performace individually anyway. as does modern machinery even today. dyno tests prove there are even 20hp differences in 200hp engines of same make and model. thats 10% difference. and no one has asked that much of change here anyways. just a little to improve the gaming experience some.

I sure hope so... I tried your suggestion of powermanagement, and also tried forcing constant voltage (msi afterburner). same thing with fps, it plummets when looking at the town even when the clocks and voltages stayed up :( I sure wish they would take a look at this as i was able to stay +60fps guaranteed (no.1 reason for the card upgrade), untill the latest build, so there must be something off in the update aswell.

Well we all know that looking at towns or forests the fps goes down. But why? I noticed the voltages and clockspeeds drop in these situations ~50% Very strange. you would think that in stressfull situations it should boost the clockspeeds+volts up, or atleast stay up, not go down. dont you think? Tried traditional overclocking and the new curve editor based oc, same thing. when looking at the town area (in this case novorossiysk), volts and clocks go down about 50%, and the fps follows. there's no overheating. i stay below 60 celcius all times. now i dont know how smart these cards are, but it allmost feels like that when looking at a town it "knows" it cant do proper FPS, no matter the clockspeeds, and clocks down to save energy? Which is bad, because when ever the clockspeeds change that much (~1GHz), there's a stutter/lag spike. I would appreciate if other pascal card owners could report this too. i think it might be the latest update as i was able to stay +60fps guaranteed before the update. now noticed some stutters and enabled gpu stats overlay, and noticed this strange behaviour. tnx Win7x64 / 3570K@4.2 / 16G ram / gtx1070

No. there was grass before. or bushes or whatever. The texture is called "SmallShit_Grass.dds" in the ground textures, it's still included but it's not rendered anymore. not in vanilla dcs or in any of the ground texture mods either. dont know if it's intentional or not but he is right. it's missing in the latest build.

Play with your Track Ir Pitch axis settings in game. Lower the Y saturation until it doens't flip anymore. For me it stopped flipping at 76%. But i have modified server.lua so it might be different for you... Or use the old default.lua. then its the same as before. could not find link for it so i put it in my dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2cq7s39kecm6ci/default.lua?dl=0 Put inside DCS World/config/input/aircrafts/default/trackir

Im not talking about being able to see your tail looking up, but if your face is pointing straight up, edge of your vision is somewhere around 120-130 irl. Ingame the trackir movement represent both your neck and your eyes, not only your neck. Ofcourse different types of helmets restrict that fov in vertical axis somewhat, but it is still more than your monitor can show you. that's why i feel setting that to 100-110 deg gives you about 120-130 degrees to the edge of your fov. I have modified head size in server.lua so my settings might not be right for you if yours is default. But anyway, what i really came here to say is that restrict your trackir pitch axis to 76% (y saturation) and you dont have to suffer this annoyance anymore. if that 76% is not correct for you, just experiment a little and you find the spot when it doesnt flip to inverted anymore. when you find it, it should be the same as before.

[Reported] TrackIR Orientation Flips when Exceeding 90 Degrees on Vertical Axis I have set the view limit for looking up to 110 degrees in server.lua because that is about how much i can see when looking up in real cockpit (have to arc by back a little tough). However when the view (head angle of virtual pilot) exeeds the lift vector (90 deg up) the image gets flipped 180 degrees. For example: in vertical climb, when looking straight up, you see the horizon, inverted ofcourse which is how it should be naturally, but when you exeed that 90 deg up, the horizon gets flipped from inverted to non inverted, as you would be looking at it straight at level flight. Device: TrackIr 4 Software: TrackIr 5 latest. No mods, latest beta build Edit: Same thing with default server.lua But i got rid of the annoyance by restricting the pitch axis to 76% (pitch Y saturation 76%) and it still seems to give me about 100-110 degrees upwards angle which i feel is correct enough, but the view is still somehow bugged. it feels like it doesnt center it self properly in the y axis (up/dwn,not pitch). Could be my track ir profile that just doenst work with these new head tracking settings. anyways i will be using the old default.lua untill these changes are done and permanent.

wanna bet? that the radar in russian planes goes on by it self, when bandit is locked with vertical scan or other thermal lock and you pull angles out of thermal cone? or that the radar doesnt remember where it was pointing when you brake the lock? or that eos goes off if you pop to see nav mode? or....etc. It's an eagle show allready and you just made it worse. Yeah the eagle is the first plane everybody learns usually, but ignoring veteran su/mig pilots and their requests for improvements (or fixes really), in hopes to lure newbies to the game is a crime imo. Behold for the revenge of the russian planes pilots! (searching tor network to find gansters in moscow...) ^^JOKE!!!! so if you find your studio blown up some day, it wasn't me.:music_whistling:

OK i seem to be misunderstood constantly. So i put it as simple as i can: Bugs, 9 years old, proven to be resolvable, have considerable effect on combat efficiency of a certain platform, being out of scope = FAIL

"your understanding of the "nuts and bolts" in the simulation product in question is incomplete" Before you start bashing me from your "high chair" about my understanding about "nuts and bolts" as you so "cleverly" put it out, bear in mind that i was pointing out that there are still bugs that are almost 10 YEARS OLD!!!!!! Still there after multiple patches and two commercial releases. And even if i'm not a softdev. I know people who are. Just asked them about tolerable age for any major bug in any commercial software. And guess what? None of them considered 9-10 years to be acceptable within any situation, in any commercial software, especially after two retail addons. So i believe that my point was not made by an uneducated idiot, even if you want to tell that to your selves. And just for fun i added some videos about a F-18 mod for FC2, made by a Finnish guy called Kegetys. Now he's software developer by profession and well known in ARMA community for being an uber modder. So here's what 1 guy has been able to accomplish by HIM SELF and doing it just for fun mostly. There are no tricks used in the videos, cocpit is really clickable and the mdf's work for real. P.S. The mod is not public and is not available for dl, so everyone, please dont ask links to get it. Just wanted to point out that maybe leaning towards modders, might not be such a bad idea, since most of them are softdevs by profession, and would probably help you guys for free if credited for their effort...

I am the customer so me being upset should be fine. You on the other hand... And if it is impossible for you to understand why a CUSTOMER who has seen a major bug in the radar system corrected by a community member in the past, cant really understand why the code has not been put in to the commercial product, you have been workin too long on "that side of the fence" imo. After all its only a lua script. It may not be "just drop in" code for your purposes but when considering the effect that this radar bug has on the hole gameplay, and the time it has been buggin(hehe) us the effort vs results ratio should not be too bad, since the code is there allready. So excuse fuc*ing me for not seeing it being out of scope. Voodooman over and out.

Because i PAY for this, me the CUSTOMER remember? And because it has been done before. Your question just proves my point of your standards for customer service, or lack of it to be honest. You shoud not be answering questions made by a CUSTOMER, if hard questions upset you.

"Fixing? isn't that a feature?" So what you are saying is that in real SU/Mig the radar jumps into other side gimbal-limit if that's where the radar was pointed when i locked the enemy, instead of staying where it was pointing when the lock is broken? If this is true, i apologise. If not. THAT has been corrected with a lua sript before so i dont understand how can it be "out of scope".

you are missing the point your selves here. The thing you forget is that this is the THIRD time we "pay to the doctor". And like i pointed out before, fixes for SOME of these issues have been succesfully correctecd by modders in the past. So what is your excuse for not fixing the funny radar gimbal thing i mentioned before on SU/Mig since it has been done before in a simple lua script? Gimme a good explanation and i 'll shut up for good about this.

I am not expecting FC3 to be DCS. There are just too many bugs that have been there too long. As simple as that. YOU think that if customer doesn't understand what all you have done gives you a pass because you worked hard anyways? How can you even think that way???? It's the same if you would go to the doctor and said, look doc my ankle is killing me, please help. And when you wake up from anesthesia the doc says: hey, i didnt fix your ankle but i removed a mole from your thigh, being very proud of his work when saying that to you. You still have your ankle busted, but hey! it doenst matter because you dont have that mole anymore, and the poor doc had to work hard to get it out. While getting the mole out was probably a good idea since they might get nasty, but what did you a CUSTOMER wanted the doc to do? Get the drift?????????????????????????????????

Unsatisfied customer Well thats what i am. But like i said, they will get my money again, but not because i appreciate their work, only because there is no alternative. And IMO that's why all others buy it too. And i think ED is taking advantage of this situation making us pay every year or two for...bits and pieces. You see i play other genre games as well. Usually a new game today will get bugs like these (that we have been patiently waiting to be fixed for years) fixed in months from the release. I know that the size and funding of a company plays a big role in all this, but this goes beyond being a small company, this is just super poor customer service. And leaves this genre vulnerable to bigger companies to take over. Usually i like to take the side of a small company versus a big company but lately i have started to feel that maybe it would be in our interest to lets some big company take over the Genre. We would still be robbed, and would pay more for sure, but i can't avoid thinking that we would also get MUCH more in return in that situation. I personally have about 1000€ invested in hotas, pedals, tir etc. so paying 50€ every year would not take me down, but paying 30-40€ for nothing makes me frustrated as hell.

"If there is work then they should get paid for it. It's as simple as that." I fail to see your logic. So lets say you take your car to the shop to be repaired. if the car isn't repaired you would still pay the guy because he tried? YOU are the customer here. Have you forgotten that? and EtherealN, you mentioned complete overhaul on FM's including missles. So howcome the launch platform speed still has no effect on missle speed? A feature of that importance, still not implemented. How can you even market it as a sim in this day and age??? You are making excuses for jobs not done. period. Jobs that a modder could have done, but your pride wont give up to ask the modder community's help. If i would get the money to buy ED. i would sack everyone coding FC! EVERYONE! and fill the spots with modders. If that would have been done 2 years ago, we would be playing a game with more flyable planes with more accurate modelling ATM.