next DCS game essentials....

[Feuerfalke]

I think you misunderstanding the point: People aren't so wealthy like old times, so maybe ED should try to wring performance out and to take advantage of each little transistor in our system, instead of more new fps-hungry features, often bad optimized (FSX?) -> X-Plane is doing very nice with this, thinking not only in high-end computers, but average and low-end computers too.

 

Regards!!

 

As GGTharos already posted: If people would really suffer that bad from the economic crisis, people would stop playing PC games. In fact, we have at least one community member who had to sell his complete PC plus Flightgear.

But IMHO this is not common and it is not the point, as development of new hardware will definitely continue as well as development of new games will. Believe it or not, this market is even growing faster than ever before (IIRC Gaming-PC&Consoles sales have increased by 11% last year).

 

I also don't think that X-Plane and FSX compare performance-wise. FSX has the intention to make an acceptable simulation with a lot of detail around the world, whereas X-Plane intends to make a detailed simulation on a smaller-scaled area and with less details.

Besides that, if you really use X-Plane as intended and increase FlightModel Rendering, it quickly runs at it's limits as well as when you implement high-poly-models.

 

As always, it's probably just a matter of perspective.

[beers]

i have finally found satisfaction with my q6600 at 3.6GHz. I would strongly suggest that anyone with a q6600 G0 take up the wonderful hobby of over-clocking and go for the gusto, don't settle for 3.0. I recently installed a MASSCOOL heat sink and it makes all the difference. slight nudges to voltages and a hefty increase in timings and badda-boom, flowing FPS. As I mentioned before, at 2.8 I was happier than 2.4. At 3.2 things were even better but still wanting; 20-40fps with drops to single digits in heavy combat. At 3.6 I have not seen it drop below 20 and I average 30-60.

 

MSI P7N, q6600 G0 @ 3.6 GHz, 8GB DDR2 @ 800 MHz, GTX 260, 2048x1152, Saitek X52, TIR5

textures & scenes @ high, distance @ medium, shadows & water = 0, no mirrors

[brewber19]

Couldn't agree more.

 

If you want better, then earn more to pay for it. Its not fair to get more for free, we've got to earn the nice things in life, not expect to be given it.

 

I like the fact that if I've worked hard to buy good gear, that I get the benefit of that by a better gaming experience. If you want the same experience as everyone else...buy a console.

 

 

 

If $15 is too much for you, turn off the computer and save on electricity. Really, if it's THAT bad, make the right choice and turn off the non-essentialls - your ocmputer shouldn't even be on.

 

Can't afford a new one? Tough. Games advance, that's how it is. If your current computer barely plays FC, it'll barely play FC2. Those of us who can afford new parts will buy them, and I see no reason to hold back because some people cannot afford them. That would simply be the wrong thing to do ... this isn't some app that you need for your livelyhood.

[amalahama]

Besides that, if you really use X-Plane as intended and increase FlightModel Rendering, it quickly runs at it's limits as well as when you implement high-poly-models.

 

That is not true. Hi-res models in X-plane are now available (+100.000 polys), terrain is 1 arc seg res SRTM (aprox 70 m in the equator) and now shaders are used for water and lighting. You can import FSX airports and your fps will be still much better than FSX.

 

Take a look at this :):

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

If you want better, then earn more to pay for it. Its not fair to get more for free, we've got to earn the nice things in life, not expect to be given it.

 

I like the fact that if I've worked hard to buy good gear, that I get the benefit of that by a better gaming experience. If you want the same experience as everyone else...buy a console.

 

Hey!! Nobody here have said that ED have to work for free!! ;) I'd paid happily 15€, or 30 or 60€ for a high quality simulation, but I wouldn't like to have to buy an high-end computer only for using one core, 32 bits (2GB RAM) and 30% of my graphic card because simulation is poor optimized ;)

 

Regards!!

[Feuerfalke]

Yeah, very nice video.

 

But still FSX got a 38m mesh AFAIK and somewhat high-poly models in FSX start at about 750,000 polygons. ;)

[Eldur]

In fact, it works the exact other way around: You make a game that barely runs on modern PCs, so you can get the maximum out of graphics and or gameplay. The basis calculation is that people will upgrade their PCs anyway and by aiming as high as possible, they will still play the game in 5 years and buy the sequels based on the same engine in the meanwhile.

 

Good point. When Lock On came out in Nov 03, I just had a new rig for a month or something like that. AXP 2500+, 1GB, Radeon 9800. I upgraded it to 2GB, then took over the RAM to a new rig with A64X2 4400+ and 2 X1800XT in March 2006 (2nd video card was like 2-3 month later), which I finally upgraded to 3GB and a HD3870. Two months ago my mainboard died and I had to do what I wanted to do anyway. Now it's a Phenom II X4 955 (4x 3.2GHz) and 8Gigs of RAM. And finally I can run Lock On at high settings. Still I keep the water low, because of the FPS drop. On the first rig enabling just heat blur resulted in dead 1fps frame rate. And every shooting came with 2-3sec stutters at minimal graphics. That's all gone and it still looks quite up-to-date.

[kiss4luna]

Believe it or not, the frame rate the human eye can perceive is only around 14-16 frames per second; this is generally why motion pictures are captured at 30 frames per second; because that compensates for non-synchronizing to refreshing... 25 FPS should still appear smooth to you... unless of course you are cross bred with an american eagle.

 

people get pretty hung up on frame rates i find... and accordingly they compormise on looks to get high rates...but unless i am wrong, you should only get worried if she dips below that 16 threshold in big battles.

 

Quality before quantity for me :P

 

 

you totally misunderstood how many framerates human eyes could recieve per second. if you was a Doom or Quake player, you'll know such as "25fps(or 30fps or 60fps) is enough because higher is useless for human eyes" is totally bullshit for many conditions

 

and, if you have a good-enough machine, you can test it yourself in DCS. you set MaxFPS=? in config.cfg, try 15/25/30/60/80/... and watch the same track and make sure framerate reach the value you set(right-ctrl + Pause)

[weasel75]

you totally misunderstood how many framerates human eyes could recieve per second. if you was a Doom or Quake player, you'll know such as "25fps(or 30fps or 60fps) is enough because higher is useless for human eyes" is totally bullshit for many conditions

 

You are so right :)

 

I never understood how the "from 25fps up, it appears to be a fluid/continuous movement" made it to a "everything from 25fps up makes no difference". :doh:

 

Everyone moving in a virtual world will notice the difference between 25fps and 60 fps. It is just so much easier to track movement in a 60Hz-setup compared to the 25/30fps.... :thumbup: