Some Comparison Shots of the Free Caucasus Update

[Ganesh]

Amazing but, will be realy good they work left size map to, around left size map is realy ugly, and add 2 0r 3 more airport on this Area!

 

Of course you can always ask for more, but ...

 

i want to say Thank You ED :thumbsup:

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Ganesh

[AKULA_OPTIMUS]

I like flying in 1.5 and 2.0 and look forward to the Caucasus update, hope it is free but if not I am still willing to provide support.

 

:doh:

[MikeMikeJuliet]

I like flying in 1.5 and 2.0 and look forward to the Caucasus update, hope it is free but if not I am still willing to provide support.

 

It is free. That has been the case from the start.

[Nero.ger]

for comparison, this is what it looks like if you DONT have a high end PC

 

edit: its 2.5 , in case you are confused and think its 1.2 or 1.5 :)

Edited January 31, 2018 by Nero.ger

[Kayos]

for comparison, this is what it looks like if you DONT have a high end PC

 

 

What settings are you using?

[Nero.ger]

low on everything that can be set to low of course

i dont have a 1.5 shot handy but it look WAY better than this

[aairon]

low on everything that can be set to low of course

i dont have a 1.5 shot handy but it look WAY better than this

 

What are the general specs on your system?

I'm just wondering it may help others, also when you set everything to low do you get consistent frame rates above 30?

[gulredrel]

Thanks you ED. Map looks much better now. More natural, having all the trees in the valleys. Even without an high end system.

 

 

 

Illuminated lampposts along the street :cheer3nc:

 

[Weta43]

2 things:

 

1/ IT's A BETA !!!!

 

2/ The lower graphics options are for weaker PCs.

If it looked as good with the lower graphics option as with the higher ones, it wouldn't need graphics options.

[Northstar98]

2 things:

 

1/ IT's A BETA !!!!

 

2/ The lower graphics options are for weaker PCs.

If it looked as good with the lower graphics option as with the higher ones, it wouldn't need graphics options.

 

Perfect

 

Argh! What nonsense is stopping me from give this the rep it deserves? "Need to spread around"??? BAAHHHHHHHHHH

[hannibal]

i have been enjoying 2.5... the the terrain tiles in 1.5 used to kill me, felt like MS FS2004,

 

but 2.5... AWESOME!

[Basco1]

2.5 is SUPERB !........Thank you very much ED,the hard work that obviously gone into this is very much appreciated.

[Alf.Snake]

the new up day,they make the brightness gamma to hi. 1.4 is to many brightness

[mkiii]

My BBC Micro Model B won't run 2.5. I am disappointed ;)

 

Seriously though, If you set absolutely everything to the lowest possible settings on any sim, all you should reasonably expect is green for land and blue for sky.

[Headwarp]

I just watched a sunset over the water on 104th Pheonix...which reflected over the water all the way to the coastline. Witnessing a furball take place 20km away in the dimming sky. Absolutely stunning. The ocean went from blue to orange to red before the night swallowed the sun whole. We then took out our mighty harriers, and the look of afterburners lighting up in the sky through our NVG's covering distance rather quickly was amazing to witness.

 

Anyway. 2.5 is gorgeous, hopefully the hotfixes will start getting people having issues sorted out to where they can enjoy it too.

 

Thanks again Eagle Dynamics for this taste of the future of combat flight sims and for bringing this level of pretty to your virtual Caucasus region . It's going to be a lonng spring waiting on the Hornet. ;) But so worth it.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Headwarp

[aairon]

I feel like the first guy to report that the Emperor has no clothes.

I can't express how underwhelmed I was, settings as recommended in the forums, great frame rates and yes much nicer but still looking ten years old.

Scream at me all you like youngsters, but that's the way I see it way too much hype for so little.

Nonetheless I am very happy that folks are digging it.

I hope you folks don't hurt yourselves patting each other on the back so vigorously.

Edited February 13, 2018 by aairon

[NineLine]

I feel like the first guy to report that the Emperor has no clothes.

I can't express how underwhelmed I was, settings as recommended in the forums, great frame rates and yes much nicer but still looking ten years old.

Scream at me all you like youngsters, but that's the way I see it way too much hype for so little.

Nonetheless I am very happy that folks are digging it.

I hope you folks don't hurt yourselves patting each other on the back so vigorously.

 

 

Really? I must have missed a flight sim that looked like this 10 years ago....

[aairon]

Really? I must have missed a flight sim that looked like this 10 years ago....

Right lol the old "show a competitors flight sim" it's pretty worn as well, as long as we use that as a standard it will be what it is.

I'm not complaining as you see I'm simply critiquing, It's obviously an improvement but as I say I am still underwhelmed, but that doesn't matter because it wasn't designed for my needs.

I just thought ONE SINGLE comment about how it's not the greatest thing since buttered toast was invented.

 

You folks at ED aren't expected to be on the same level as the huge developers and it's nothing to be embarrassed about you do great with the incredibly limited resources you have at hand.

Edited February 13, 2018 by aairon

[GeorgeLKMT]

I'm not sure if anybody's claiming it's the best thing ever. DCS or any other sim obviously can't hold a candle to any big budget game out there, but 2.5 simply looks better than 1.5. And 1.5 looked better than 1.2 etc. So at least we're getting somewhere and that's what matters.

 

By the way, Crysis came out 10 year ago, feel old yet? ;)

Edited February 13, 2018 by GeorgeLKMT

[Vitormouraa]

I feel like the first guy to report that the Emperor has no clothes.

I can't express how underwhelmed I was, settings as recommended in the forums, great frame rates and yes much nicer but still looking ten years old.

Scream at me all you like youngsters, but that's the way I see it way too much hype for so little.

Nonetheless I am very happy that folks are digging it.

I hope you folks don't hurt yourselves patting each other on the back so vigorously.

 

Sorry, but is this some sort of joke?

 

DCS looks better than ever. Though we are having issues with memory leak, ED is working on it and it will probably be fixed soon.

 

Remember a few years ago when we had separate clients for; Multiplayer, Singleplayer and the menu itself?

 

Multiplayer was just multiplayer, you couldn't use filters because there were none, look for servers by their names or anything like that, it was just a list and your scroll wheel. Multiplayer had huge issues with desync, so ED worked on the net code, it got better...

 

DCS isn't a perfect game, but it's so much better than before, and getting better each year. DCS evolved a lot...

 

You say you've been flying sims since the 80s, honestly, that doesn't seem to be the case. DCS is, without any doubt, the future for military and flight/combat sim developers.

 

Saying DCS 2.5 looks ten years old is almost an offense. Please, take a look at the past, at what DCS and the previous series used to be. :)

 

It's not all about visuals too, ED has been developing new technologies as well.

[Mars Exulte]

I'm not sure if anybody's claiming it's the best thing ever.

 

Of course it isn't.

 

That would be me.

[NineLine]

Right lol the old "show a competitors flight sim" it's pretty worn as well, as long as we use that as a standard it will be what it is.

I'm not complaining as you see I'm simply critiquing, It's obviously an improvement but as I say I am still underwhelmed, but that doesn't matter because it wasn't designed for my needs.

I just thought ONE SINGLE comment about how it's not the greatest thing since buttered toast was invented.

 

You folks at ED aren't expected to be on the same level as the huge developers and it's nothing to be embarrassed about you do great with the incredibly limited resources you have at hand.

 

ED is in a competition with itself, wanting to make the experience you get in the sim the greatest Flight Sim experience out there. You cant compare to the "huge developers" because most of those developers are making an entirely different game, small highly detailed worlds. Saying that the work ED has done, on the scale they are shooting for and the complexity of the simulation, saying that it looks ten years old is simply just insulting to the people that are working so hard on this.

 

I understand that people would like it to look like the games that some of these "huge developers" put out, but in the same sense, those games are so much smaller and simpler in scale and complexity, you have to look at the whole picture.

[Art-J]

The guy has a 50% point, though. Talking strictly about visuals, 2.5 with Deferred Shading looks absolutely like million dollars in dawn/dusk conditions (no wonder all Wags' promo vids were done in early or late hours missions :D), cockpits washout problems have been mostly fixed at last and PBR on aircraft works excellent... BUT:

a) it's unplayable at night for various terrain, clouds and cockpit lighting reasons, thus being indeed behind its former-self and 10-year old titles;

b) it's badly oversaturated in midday hours, though that mostly applies to Normandy map (yeah, yeah, 3rd party is responsible, yada yada, yada). Someone on the other forum posted a screen below as a tongue-in-cheek comparison to DCS Normandy colour-wise and although I had a laugh, I had to admit he was right.

 

I'm also not a fan of ubiquitous diarrhea-orange colour palette of Caucasus autumn scenery, I know it's someone's artistic interpretation of how autumn should look like, but still, it turned the best looking Caucasus season of 1.5.8 into the worst looking season of 2.5. Not mention shoreline water details we've lost from 2.2.

 

Conversion to deferred rendering was a ballsy, avant-garde movement on ED's part, but it seems they've been really struggling with tweaking the engine to make it work and look right all around. Biting more than one can chew, maybe?

 

Other, "non-deferred" sims, even the WWII one from equally small RU-dev team, are more coherent in this regard, sadly. Oh well, no turning back now, we can only wait for further improvements here.

[NineLine]

Most if not all of those issues are just that, known issues and being actively worked on. Not like they released 2.5 and said this is it, this is what you get, see you in a year for DCS 2019.

 

The guy has a 50% point, though. Talking strictly about visuals, 2.5 with Deferred Shading looks absolutely like million dollars in dawn/dusk conditions (no wonder all Wags' promo vids were done in early or late hours missions :D), cockpits washout problems have been mostly fixed at last and PBR on aircraft works excellent... BUT:

a) it's unplayable at night for various terrain, clouds and cockpit lighting reasons, thus being indeed behind its former-self and 10-year old titles;

b) it's badly oversaturated in midday hours, though that mostly applies to Normandy map (yeah, yeah, 3rd party is responsible, yada yada, yada). Someone on the other forum posted a screen below as a tongue-in-cheek comparison to DCS Normandy colour-wise and although I had a laugh, I had to admit he was right.

 

I'm also not a fan of ubiquitous diarrhea-orange colour palette of Caucasus autumn scenery, I know it's someone's artistic interpretation of how autumn should look like, but still, it turned the best looking Caucasus season of 1.5.8 into the worst looking season of 2.5. Not mention shoreline water details we've lost from 2.2.

 

Conversion to deferred rendering was a ballsy, avant-garde movement on ED's part, but it seems they've been really struggling with tweaking the engine to make it work and look right all around. Biting more than one can chew, maybe?

 

Other, "non-deferred" sims, even the WWII one from equally small RU-dev team, are more coherent in this regard, sadly. Oh well, no turning back now, we can only wait for further improvements here.

[Mars Exulte]

What people don't understand, is you can build something that looks like the coolest game out there, AND include the greatest physics/simulation in the world... But no personal computer would be able to run it.

 

You have to make compromises somewhere. I have Xplane and have seen Prepar3d, and yeah, with some tweaking especially, they look photorealisitic. Note by "some tweaking" I mean that mod/interface stuff that, if you want to use it to its full potential involves multi-terrabyte downloads. They can get away with that because they're not having to keep track of as much "background" stuff as DCS is. Sure, you've got AI civilan traffic that we don't have... which doesn't really require a lot of resources to do, if they're just being passively updated when they're not within visual range.

 

DCS on the other hand, has to fit in complex weapon systems modeling, complex sensor modeling, a more detailed flight model (as I understand it, the "others" are good, but not to the extent of DCS), etc. A long list of stuff they're having to do in addition.

 

You're not going to get Witcher 3 with airplanes or something :P Ever. I mean, eventually, yeah, but not for another 15-20 years. And by then people will be bitching about how outdated it is because it doesn't have smell-o-vision and a neural cortex stimulator like Call of Duty 33 : Yes, We're Still In Business