Is this gonna be another Falcon 3

[Cowboy10uk]

Hi all, 1st post here after sitting on the sidelines for a while, Now I'm not complaining or even trying to put dampners on Blackshark, But I'm a bit worried about what the specs to run this properly are going to be.

 

The main question is will this program be the 21st century Falcon 4. By that I mean, when that sim first came out all those yrs ago, I'm sure many of us rushed out to get it, It was and Still is The best and most realistic sim that had come out. However it has taken near on 7+ yrs to get a machine that would even run the damn thing :D Though it has been worth the wait and even now is one of the best sims ever made, and I'm still finding new things that i havnt seen before ever time I fly.

 

Now yet again we have Blackshark, It looks amazing, By the vids I have seen, and the one time I was very lucky to have a quick flight at the bristol Flight sim show last year, I am very very impressed and its already on my list to pre order just as soon as we can, along with the extra flight manual that I have heard about. ( I have one of the 1st add on manuals for Lock On, and that was very very well done)

 

However, How will it fly on our bog standard machines, While I hope against hope, that I will be able to install it and hit the skys online straight away, I have a horrible feeling that its gonna take a super comp to be able to run this right. While i'm sure we will hit the specs in a few yrs or so and it will be worth the wait, Yet again it looks like the falcon route is on the way.

 

fingers crossed I will be proved wrong, as I normally am :) and I will see you all in the hostile skys.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Cowboy10uk
being stupid and not being able to add up

[Yellonet]

This is a completely guessing, but I'd say take the fps you get in LO:FC and multiply with 0.67 and you'll get DCS:BS fps.

To make it easy, get a PC that runs LO:FC twice as fast as you need it to and that should be alright for DCS:BS ;)

 

We need a tester comment on this though, please :)

[159th_Viper]

The main question is will this program be the 21st century Falcon 3.... and even now is one of the best sims ever made...

 

 

Falcon 3..........WTF...............Never heard of it! :D

 

 

DCS:F-16.......That's gonna be worth a ponder me thinks. As for the Hardware requirements to adequately run Black Shark, I'm certain that an average contemporary system will be more than adequate for Gameplay.

 

If you want all the Bells and Whistles - as with all products - you will in all probability have to ensure that your system has all the Bells and Whistles.

 

As is the nature of our Virtual Aviation Careers - we need to spend a lot to get a lot............and judging by the last producers note - I'm gonna throw the whole Kitchen Sink at a Rig in the not-too-distant future - Hell Yeah!

 

And Yeah - Welcome to the Forums M8 :)

[crazyeddie]

Ditto Falcon 3 - never heard of it - is it something I might want to try ?

[Cowboy10uk]

Haha, Ok just noticed my mistake, Hey its early and I have a Hang over ok :D

[Yellonet]

Falcon 3.0 :)

 

[RedTiger]

To make it easy, get a PC that runs LO:FC twice as fast as you need it to and that should be alright for DCS:BS ;)

 

We need a tester comment on this though, please :)

 

Care to point me to some hardware that will run LO:FC twice as fast as I need it? :lol: Does this even exist?

 

@Cowboy10uk

 

The frame rate in FC differs very, very widely depending on what you're doing. Flying at 40k feet on a clear day and I'l litterally have 200 FPS. Fly low over Krasnodar in a complicated mission, now I'm lucky to have 15. This is with everything but shadows maxed, no tweaks, and LOReloaded terrain.

 

I'd point you to two things. First, the Ka-50 will be low to the ground. So expect a frame rate on the lower end. However, it will also be traveling much slower. I have a feeling that this is going to ease off on the FPS. You won't be forcing your machine to render all this stuff lickity split as you zip past at 600 knots!

 

Second, I'd go check out the first video BeachAV8R made for simhq. He created this on his older machine that had more modest hardware. He mentioned that his settings were medium-high and that FRAPS caused a bit of a frame rate hit. Take a look at his specs and his video and judge for yourself!

[GGTharos]

I do happen to be running a 64-CPU 64GB RAM blade enclosure ... :D

 

Care to point me to some hardware that will run LO:FC twic

[Yellonet]

Care to point me to some hardware that will run LO:FC twice as fast as I need it? :lol: Does this even exist?

Doubtful :D

 

@Cowboy10uk

 

The frame rate in FC differs very, very widely depending on what you're doing. Flying at 40k feet on a clear day and I'l litterally have 200 FPS. Fly low over Krasnodar in a complicated mission, now I'm lucky to have 15. This is with everything but shadows maxed, no tweaks, and LOReloaded terrain.

 

I'd point you to two things. First, the Ka-50 will be low to the ground. So expect a frame rate on the lower end. However, it will also be traveling much slower. I have a feeling that this is going to ease off on the FPS. You won't be forcing your machine to render all this stuff lickity split as you zip past at 600 knots!

 

Second, I'd go check out the first video BeachAV8R made for simhq. He created this on his older machine that had more modest hardware. He mentioned that his settings were medium-high and that FRAPS caused a bit of a frame rate hit. Take a look at his specs and his video and judge for yourself!

Another thing, as the Ka-50 is most of the time close to the ground you may get away with having quite short view distance. Also because of the nature of the Ka-50s missions we shouldn't expect lots of flights of aircraft something that also will help to keep the frame rate high. Or rather not so low ;)

[BBQ]

I thought you traded Altitude for Speed, not FPS. Hmmm...:doh:

[ThunderChief]

This is from the DCS website:

 

• The simulation algorithms of ground vehicles, ships and weapons had been improved to provide a significant system performance improvement. This allows users to place many detailed units in a mission without a large system performance penalty.
  
• All vehicles now include several Level Of Detail (LOD) and also help assist in system performance.
  

IMHO this will be offset by all the new features like higher terrain detail, flight model etc. so you would still need a faster CPU than for LO:FC

[Cowboy10uk]

yep had a look at that, those specs are pretty much the same as mine, It looks like it ran well, though there's no action involved, I remember falcon ran great untill you went into battle, But fingers crossed it will run ok, If not then I guess the upgrade I was planning at the end of the yr will have to come forward. :D Damn I hope everyone here is right, really looking forward to this sim, Would hate to get it and not be able to do it justice on this machine.

[Shepski]

E8400 with an 8800GT runs it very nicely and it's still not fully optimized with logging, automatic track recording, and other debugging code still present.

[stswrebel]

I played Falcon 3.0 when it first came out, along with the Fulcrum expantion. I loved those games as they were the first combat sims I got hooked on.

[Yellonet]

E8400 with an 8800GT runs it very nicely and it's still not fully optimized with logging, automatic track recording, and other debugging code still present.

Thanks for chiming in, I like the sound of what you're saying... especially as those two peices of hardware isn't very pricey :)

[Cowboy10uk]

These are the basic heart of the machine i'll be building in Oct

 

LN17135 4G ram £44.60

LN22236 G/c 9800 GTX £179.76

LN21223 M/B Asus £49.69

LN22228 AMP CPU £123.36

 

all from www.scan.co.uk

Already got Track Ir with pro clip,

Thrustmaster Cougar,

Saitek rudder pedals.

as I've said before this yr is just a small upgrade, so fingers crossed it will be more than enough to run BS well. :huh:

[Pilotasso]

Ditto Falcon 3 - never heard of it - is it something I might want to try ?

 

what planet your from? :D

 

how old are you eddie? or maybe the missing ".0" confused you?

 

[

Falcon 3.0 :)

 

 

bageezus thats slow, even my 486 at 50 MHZ laptop ran it fine.

 

my fav SIM of all times: I played the sucker for more than half a decade before I shelved it. But it never had a worthy successor. :(

Edited July 23, 2008 by Pilotasso

[crazyeddie]

Appologies Pilotasso, not thinking !!! (or remembering) !!!

 

I recollect trying Falcon 4.0 a few years ago, okay (ish) but not as good as Falcon 3.0. Aspects of Falcon 3 were very good, Falcon 4 was rubbish compared to this Sim.

 

I prefer Lomac for overall quality and feel, as befits my advancing years, kind of you to notice !!!

Edited July 23, 2008 by crazyeddie

[Royale]

You should try Falcon 4.0 Allied Force, it is exceptionally good.

[159th_Viper]

You should try Falcon 4.0 Allied Force, it is exceptionally good.

 

You're not alluding to the Flight Model, surely...........:)

 

Must've been about a year or so ago I installed a particular version - specifics escape me atm - and avionics aside,the Graphics and more importantly - the Flight Model, absolutely killed me!

 

In all honesty - Hats Off to the Falcon Community. No amount of button-pushing succeeded in capturing my interest - even for a day.

 

 

 

The Essence of Flight - That is what I seek and Revel in. For now, I have found my fix in the Wings of the Grach.........Everything else is second best and as a consequence - not worthy :D

[SUBS17]

I think I should point out here that the F-16 addon will likely be made after the current engine is replaced with a dx10 version with multicore support. BTW Falcon 3 rocked it was closer to what DCS is than F4 because it had addon aircraft such as the Mig29 and F/A-18. Pity F4 never got any addon aircraft like F3.

[Pilotasso]

F4 team got ditched soon after the game was rushed into market. I was a huge F3 fan but I was expecting something more than an avionics simulator (dynamic capaign didnt work out of the box, neither did for a long time). Micorproses patches tried to fix many bugs but also castrated the game in terms of AI for extra FPS. It was only years after with the mods that it became what it was ment to (except for Fm wich was basicaly never touched aside from the text data tables), but it was already dated, and so much more right now. I cant play it no more, whatever incarnation from it.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Pilotasso

[RedTiger]

LOL! I've never heard so many people say Falcon 3.0 was better. I'm not arguing, please don't get me wrong. Its just funny! I showed my wife that youtube video and her reactions was "Damn, I'd hate to see what Falcon 1.0 and Falcon 2.0 looked like!"

[SUBS17]

I never said it was better just that its closer to what DCS is because it involves more than just one flyable aircraft. Even now with all the mods Falcon is still an F-16 sim. As for the earlier versions of Falcon including F-16 combat pilot which was years ahead of alot of sims and its missions and campaigns well ahead of lockons. Alot could be learned by Combat pilots campaign alone. One thing that bugs me though about every F-16 sim and all the Falcon mods not one of them bothered to model the hook.

[Tango]

Whoa.. a lot changed between Falcon 3 and Falcon 4, huh! :D

 

Now we have DCS: Black Shark to soon grace our computers. Just think what we'll be flying 10 years from now (or rather - HOW)! :D

 

Best regards,

Tango.