1.1.1.0 patch adds possibility of addon plane mods?!?

[Speed]

P-51B is not the next DCS module indeed.

 

WHEW!!!

That's a relief.

 

I was getting a sinking feeling in my stomach until I came to your post, Yo-yo. I can hardly stand playing world war II aircraft sims. I gotta have fancy electronics in my jet or helo or it's just too dull :) Besides, WWII aircraft sims/games are WAY WAY overdone. Hell, all WWII games are way overdone. I got sick of killing Nazis about a decade ago :D I won't buy IL-2 COD until it's bargin bin price, and maybe not even then... sounds like it's heading that way soon :D

 

Errmm... while you're here, are you able to confirm to us that the next DCS module is not ANY variant of the P-51?

Edited November 11, 2011 by Speed

[GGTharos]

You've reached your quota of confirmations for this quarter. ;)

[PeterP]

We will get some info soon:

 

11-10-2011

Many thanks for the birthday wishes everyone.

 

As you will see next week, the next year is going to be a very busy one for me.

[Boberro]

So when Su-25T(M) :D

[genbrien]

We will get some info soon:

 

11-10-2011

 

As you will see next week, the next year is going to be a very busy one for me... as we wont be working on the P51

 

:lol::megalol:

[Speed]

You've reached your quota of confirmations for this quarter. ;)

 

Screw you! I NEED MORE OF THEM!!! lol

 

Yea, I've been asking a lot lately. Doesn't hurt to ask, does it? :huh: At worst, they just ignore it :)

 

One of the reasons I've been asking though, is that now that we have the BS compatibility patch, the next major ED release is completely unnannounced. I've never seen it where ED hadn't revealed what the next major release was going to be. So I figure we're due very soon for some kind of announcement, I'm guessing it will either be FC3/FC2 compatibility or the next module. We shall see :)

 

Edit; Ah, announcement next week! Yay. Looking forward to it.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Speed

[hassata]

Sounds like in addition to DCS, Matt is going back into the defense sector.

[Guest Fury_007]

I think all future dcs sims should be compatible with each other, or at least release a compatibility upgrade like bs2. I can imagine the possibilities of a full on blue v red war with choppers, cas and cap all user controllable. Maybe an ability to carry out all aspects of a campaign mission.

 

1 fly sead

2 hop into a tank advance to obj

3 hop into a10 to provide cas.

4 hip into fighter to provide cap

5 hop into chopper for cas/extraction

 

 

Ohhh the possibilities...

[Hellfire257]

That is a very sick joke for an avid pony (that means Mustang for you heathens) fan!

[PeterP]

1 fly sead

2 hop into a tank advance to obj

3 hop into a10 to provide cas.

4 hip into fighter to provide cap

5 hop into chopper for cas/extraction

 

First we should be able to move freely around as a pilot before we enter the aircraft...

 

And a really nice addition would be to add something like a briefing room at the airport we start in a existing building before we walk to the arircraft of choice.

 

And in this briefing room there is a projector that show the mission data on a wall.

 

@genbrien

really dislike to see when quotes are modified - even when if this is made only for a joke in a funny way.

(and be sure I have a lot of humour!)

;) never mind

Edited November 11, 2011 by PeterP

[Rider1]

First we should be able to move freely around as a pilot before we enter the aircraft...

 

And a really nice addition would be to add something like a briefing room at the airport we start in a existing building before we walk to the arircraft of choice.

 

And in this briefing room there is a projector that show the mission data on a wall.

 

 

Personally, DCS Pilot Simulator sounds like a bad idea to me. :)

[MagnumHB]

I got sick of killing Nazis about a decade ago :D

That's what the PTO is for. See: Exhibit A, Exhibit B. Coincidentally, bringing that crippled A-20 back was one of the most epic things I've ever done in a sim.

[Spectre_USA]

Maybe he's running for president of the USA :D

 

Wags?

 

Cool, he's a good man.

 

He's got my vote...

 

:thumbup:

[HungaroJET]

...

1 fly sead

2 hop into a tank advance to obj

3 hop into a10 to provide cas.

4 hip into fighter to provide cap

5 hop into chopper for cas/extraction

...

 

That's the GOAL :gun_smilie:

[Megagoth1702]

Guys with all your wet dream compatibility ideas in the back of your head... Keep in mind that the engine is really old by now and will probably be revamped in a few months/years. Keeping things compatible is only possible by using pretty much the same core engine.

 

So what would you like more? Better performance with better systems and graphics at the cost of compatibility (but compatibility for future modules) or "kinda okay" graphics, clunky overall feel with pretty bad overall performance just for the sake of compatibility?

 

Example: Let's say you have a 3 GHz Quad Core. The game is running on 2 threads and one of them does nearly all the work. What counts is the GHz. So you have 2 cores on idle, 1 core working a bit and one core working at 100%.

 

Now if you would have all cores working at 70-100% you would have way better performance.

 

Problem? Multithreading is something that sits in the deepest corners of a game engine. So to improve that you would need to re-write a big chunk of the engine. And then you probably will feel like re-writing the whole thing.

 

So yeah - compatibility is great but I for my part would prefer a new engine over the possibility to have 4 sims run together.

[GGTharos]

The engine is being revamped all the time. That's why you see better things with every module.

[EtherealN]

Example: Let's say you have a 3 GHz Quad Core. The game is running on 2 threads and one of them does nearly all the work. What counts is the GHz. So you have 2 cores on idle, 1 core working a bit and one core working at 100%.

 

Don't stare blindly at GHz. First of all it only works for comparison on very similar processors, but secondly with all updates to the graphics engine that have been done we are starting to see a lot more instances of GPU bottlenecks.

 

The difference is, the simulator now bottlenecks on different components on different times. On a given computer it miht normally be bottled on the GPU, but in rare instances with a lot of bullets flying the CPU tanks.

 

Problem? Multithreading is something that sits in the deepest corners of a game engine. So to improve that you would need to re-write a big chunk of the engine. And then you probably will feel like re-writing the whole thing.

 

Correct, but while re-writing code you can make it so that it takes the same in-data and gives the same out-data as before.

 

My understanding of how it will go (and I'm speaking purely from my own educated guesses) is that component after component gets revamped and re-made in a similar fasion to what happened with the sound engine that was developed for FC2. As you may recall, this did not make it impossible to get BS1 to run with FC2 - BS1 was just given the same sound engine.

[Speed]

The engine is being revamped all the time. That's why you see better things with every module.

 

That's also a big part of why we see new bugs with every patch :P

[msalama]

BS1 was just given the same sound engine.

 

Yep, if the base code is modular enough you CAN replace stuff - maybe not easy, but at least sensibly. The 1st priority however at this point, IMO, would be separating the core engine from the flyables, because without that you'll ALWAYS end up with installing the whole game every time a flyable gets a major(ish) upgrade! But then ED most certainly knows this...

[Megagoth1702]

The engine is being revamped all the time. That's why you see better things with every module.

Maybe this will out me as a total noob, I just joined the DCS universe with the A-10C a couple of weeks ago. So I have little comparison. But the "core" of the engine was not really touched, was it? Just like arma2 (overall military simulation) - they add a lot of fancy graphics and physics for the vehicles etc. but the core is rotten old, pretty much the same that ran operation flashpoint... Multi-Core usage is poor and the engine is badly optimized. People are buying high end hardware which for example supports DX11 and the engine does nothing to use that power/technology for optimization. The core is just too old and by changing a small thing you break something else. So they just "leave it alone" for now.

Don't stare blindly at GHz. First of all it only works for comparison on very similar processors, but secondly with all updates to the graphics engine that have been done we are starting to see a lot more instances of GPU bottlenecks.

 

The difference is, the simulator now bottlenecks on different components on different times. On a given computer it miht normally be bottled on the GPU, but in rare instances with a lot of bullets flying the CPU tanks.

 

 

 

Correct, but while re-writing code you can make it so that it takes the same in-data and gives the same out-data as before.

 

My understanding of how it will go (and I'm speaking purely from my own educated guesses) is that component after component gets revamped and re-made in a similar fasion to what happened with the sound engine that was developed for FC2. As you may recall, this did not make it impossible to get BS1 to run with FC2 - BS1 was just given the same sound engine.

 

@GHz: Take arma2 for example. Since all the AI work is done on 1 thread it usually uses 1 core up to 80% and the others are at about 30-50%. After I overclocked my CPU the usage stayed the same, but the FPS got better. You could maybe split up the AI process a bit more, 1 thread for path finding, 1 thread for "what to do with this threat", 1 thread for "triggers and simple game logic". And then you would have 4 threads which, if split up onto all cores and synced together, would theoretically end up in much better overall performance. Right now 1 single thread is cockblocking the whole engine.

 

That's why I say that in engines where there is 1 really busy thread the GHz matters - the more the better. Heck, you might even have better performance in A10 on a single core 5GHz processor than on my 3.2 Quad. (given the same GPU etc.).

 

@bottlenecks at different places:

 

I can agree on this: In the track I posted with this post I was looking at the FPS, then moved the camera a bit and then closed the canopy. At this point the FPS was the lowest (closing canopy = indicator for "at this point my FPS was lowest"). I did some testing when I just got the game and neither my GPU nor my CPU was really loaded (GPU 50%, CPU 1 core at 70% 1 core at 40-50%) and the game was running at 14-15 FPS... I am not sure what is going on there. If none of the main components is bottlenecking what is causing the trouble then?

 

EDIT: Sorry for hi-jacking this thread. It all started with a thought on compatibility but since people who really know stuff respond I kinda keep running. It does not happen often that a DEV/guy who's close to DEVs talks about such stuff. At least I am not used to it, yet. :)

badFPS.trk

Edited November 11, 2011 by Megagoth1702

[Speed]

That's what the PTO is for.

Nazis or "Japs"- same boring tech, same boring planes, same boring game play.

 

OMG THEY USED DIFFERENT PLANES IN THE PTO!!!

 

So what, they both used the same boring weapons, and the same boring propulsion type, and flew at the same boring speed, and had the same boring lack of electronics.

 

Ok, yes, I know, some people find them exciting, and there's nothing wrong with that as you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion, but just don't expect everyone too like them. Some people hate sims of old planes, and only like modern sims. And I'm sure there's quite a lot of folks who don't quite hate antique plane sims, but just prefer the modern stuff a lot more, especially on these forums :)

[msalama]

same boring tech, same boring planes, same boring game play.

 

As regards WWII there's too much conjecture and mythology surrounding those iconic aircraft anyway, so yeah, no more IL-2 clones please ;)

[Guest Fury_007]

Guys with all your wet dream compatibility ideas in the back of your head... Keep in mind that the engine is really old by now and will probably be revamped in a few months/years. Keeping things compatible is only possible by using pretty much the same core engine.

 

So what would you like more? Better performance with better systems and graphics at the cost of compatibility (but compatibility for future modules) or "kinda okay" graphics, clunky overall feel with pretty bad overall performance just for the sake of compatibility?

 

Example: Let's say you have a 3 GHz Quad Core. The game is running on 2 threads and one of them does nearly all the work. What counts is the GHz. So you have 2 cores on idle, 1 core working a bit and one core working at 100%.

 

Now if you would have all cores working at 70-100% you would have way better performance.

 

Problem? Multithreading is something that sits in the deepest corners of a game engine. So to improve that you would need to re-write a big chunk of the engine. And then you probably will feel like re-writing the whole thing.

 

So yeah - compatibility is great but I for my part would prefer a new engine over the possibility to have 4 sims run together.

 

Are you trying to make me cry?

Lol, jk.

 

Maybe 1 or 2 more compatible vehicles, while working on engine upgrade. They could use our money from the new aircraft in order to pay programmers to develop an updated engine.

[EtherealN]

I did some testing when I just got the game and neither my GPU nor my CPU was really loaded (GPU 50%, CPU 1 core at 70% 1 core at 40-50%) and the game was running at 14-15 FPS... I am not sure what is going on there. If none of the main components is bottlenecking what is causing the trouble then?

 

Bottlenecking can happen in other ways as well. For example, you can be bottlenecked on your GPU without a GPU load checker like GPU-Z saying it's heavily loaded. Those utilities take the entire thing into consideration, but if you have shaders and so on sitting idle because the memory interface on the card is being overloaded and not feeding data fast enough... You'll be bottlenecked BUT you won't see it on such an application. (Possible "presentation" of such an issue could be through seeing increased GPU load when reducing texture sizes or resolutions, for example. Not a common problem since manufacturers tend to try to balance these things in the design of the chip and related cards, but it is a possibility.)

 

Similar things can happen in CPU's - if you give it a job that relies very heavily on floating point operations, you can easily get a situation where you are CPU-bottled, but since the integer cores aren't doing much, it'll look as if the CPU isn't doing anything.

 

(This latter is actually, in part, the "magic" behind hyperthreading - by executing two threads and doing some predictions on them, the processor tries to avoid situations where execution resources are sitting idle just because the one thread currently being executed doesn't use them.)

 

Anyways, yeah, it is a bit off-topic.

[kylania]

What settings do you use Mega, coz on all High my GPU is constantly pegged at 100%. CPU is fine I think, never checked, but GPU works it's ass off. :)