DCS: FPS

[shagrat]

singlecore forever?

How about spamming Intel and AMD forums and complain about their incompetence to produce hi-performing single core CPUs rather than Atom like cheap-shit for xPads? Intel we need a 6GHz single core... you hear me! :lol:

[Panzertard]

Luckily, the folks at ED don't have to read all this stuff. The mods and testers can tell them if there is anything useful out here. Which, in the case of polls, there usually is not!;)

 

When there's something specific / constructive / useful or good ideas - indeed, then we tend to hint people about it. Depending on the content of course.

[cichlidfan]

When there's something specific / constructive / useful or good ideas -

 

Like Shakespeare from the room full monkeys with typewriters, a good idea is bound to pop up from time to time. :D

[Cedaway]

Before starting this poll, the good position should be:

 

1) Ask ED if EDGE will support multicore, what generation of Dx (11 was announced),...

 

So, before raging, trolling and crying, why not just ask a question to the persons who know the answer?

 

Than, ED, can you tell us if the future EDGE (in combination with Nevada terrain) will support multicore, Dx11, multithreading, tessellation, will it make us coffie,...?

 

Thank you for eventual answer. (If no answer, let's consider that's because they are working hard to give us their polished products instead of answering the same questions over and over again ;-) ;)

[jmod]

Now for the umptienth time, poll option number one would culminate in the demise of Eagle Dynamics, what part of that don't you two understand?

ED was founded in 1991, and Flanker (the first product) was released in 1994, so it took almost 3 years to design and implement TFCSE!

Was there any product beside so that ED could rely on?

But now, ED has something to survive (some products, and of course the community who happily, and proudly support ED).

Anyway, ED would vanish either because some other (Russian) companies would come to the PC simulation market (like CSTS Dinamika) with better simulation engine! :(

 

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about... Id be willing to bet MOST people on here dont. To be even more honest, I don't care. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess DCS considered these things (and probably a few you didn't) before making a decision.

Honesty (and of course civilization) is most appreciated, but you are not supposed to leave comments if you don't understand the subject! :)

Edited June 15, 2012 by jmod

[GGTharos]

http://www.dinamika-avia.com/product/classifier/helicopter/detail.php?id=647

 

Yeah, I wonder who made their terrain engine.

[Blaze]

Yeah, some parts of it are better, others are not (blurry terrain textures).

[shagrat]

Anyway, ED would vanish either because some other (Russian) companies would come to the PC simulation market (like CSTS Dinamika) with better simulation engine! :(

What does he mean by better ??? The cockpits are more real, but the "terrain" looks, hmmm...:pain:

 

Dynamic lighting, sophisticated shadows? I didn't see any...

Bump mapping/reflections, especially on water? Nope...

Very basic cloud representation and, yes, I admit the cockpits and environment projectors are cool, but unfortunately unaffordable by most normal people.

 

All in all it looks like FC2 if you tweak down graphics. Besides it will take years for dinamika to get it "compatible" with hundreds and thousands of different "standard" Home PCs, like it took ED some considerable amount of time, I guess.

[104th_Cobra]

If they were to drop everything and make a new engine from the ground up, they would become another microprose, only this time there will be no one left to step up, and we will be playing hawx for the next decade or two.

 

The Holy Cow forbids this!

[WildBillKelsoe]

we got arma 3 on the way. I don't like playing FPS's anymore though. I became more attached to the flight sims, let alone DCS. Official DCS Bitch :D

[sobek]

ED was founded in 1991, and Flanker (the first product) was released in 1994, so it took almost 3 years to design and implement TFCSE!

Was there any product beside so that ED could rely on?

But now, ED has something to survive (some products, and of course the community who happily, and proudly support ED).

 

You think it would take the same amount of time to create this as it would to create something like this?

[winz]

You think it would take the same amount of time to create this as it would to create something like this?

18years...amazing, I'm speechless every time I realize how computer simulations have evolved during that time. It's just....wow.. Makes me wonder what we'll be 'flying' in another 18years. :pilotfly:

[Emmer]

We just have to wait for the next big thing , i guess......

[Peyoteros]

Well, the fact remains the same, TFC and ED has landed on the ground* (DCS CA). With that being said, the surroundings will evolve too*... I'm pretty sure TFC and ED understands that very well and are moving right direction*. Additionally, more and more third party developers are joining this wonderful adventure!* So, we're picking up the pace!*

 

Look back 5-7 years, I see LOMAC, FC*... and look at now: BS, A-10, P-51*... (F-18E**) The future is bright, the future is ours!*

Now, leave them (ED) alone** and go play something...

 

* - Fact!

** - wishful thinking

[Pyroflash]

It's amazing how quickly people go from celebrating the achievements of a company (CA) to condemning it for the very things they were celebrating NOT TWO WEEKS AGO.

[Rusty_M]

Am I missing something? Who's Condemning them?

[WildBillKelsoe]

point us to your source.

[Erforce]

Someone said one day : "Look Ahead"

 

I was sooooo angry at this time. But he was so right.

 

Truth is DCS could be an extraordinary product. But it' s getting older and older.

And i'm sure they don't have a secret lab like this guy said @ 4mn35.

 

BTW, the whole video for those who didn't knew it, is very interesting.

 

 

Anyway, even Arma 3 will have great graphics, and extremely poor simulation designs for non-infantry things.

in DCS, we have great simulation, and extremely poor graphics, aswell as Heavy CPU bottleneck, which prevents better things in the future.

And yes, True multi-threading is a pain in where know you is it, to date, only R.A.G.E. made my CPUs gone above 350%. everything on max, on a 2006 hardware, it's really enjoyable.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Erforce

[Pyroflash]

Someone said one day : "Look Ahead"

 

I was sooooo angry at this time. But he was so right.

 

Truth is DCS could be an extraordinary product. But it' s getting older and older.

And i'm sure they don't have a secret lab like this guy said @ 4mn35.

 

Correction, certain portions of DCS are getting older and older, however the engine has evolved a LOT since the early days of Flanker. This alone is evidence that it is in a state of constant evolution, with each update to the core bringing new features and updated code. So no, it isn't being lost in the times as many people seem to think, and it isn't impossible for modifications to be done to an existing framework in order to bring it up to modern day specifications.

 

Hell, look at the F-15 if you want proof. It has been around more than 20 years and is still one of the best fighters out there. Just because the airframe is of an older design, it doesn't mean that the jet itself isn't modern and fully functional within today's more digitally centered battlefield.

[Erforce]

But one F-22 will toast 10 f-15 because the aim-120c is the best BVR ranged missile fired from 60k feets :D (i'm not talking about the Aim-54 poor tracking)

And US aircraft are full of electronics. they're designed for Europe/Desert battlefields. That's why Russia's aircrafts have a real chance to get air superiority in a large portion of the world. :music_whistling: (i talked about this with an ex-chopper pilot in south america 2 days ago)

 

You are somewhat right. When i tested black shark, I immediately thought : "OMG, lock-on looks so old already! "

 

anyway, i'm glad ED exists. because they are the only true fly sim creator left in the world, with some kind of "dcs standing bottom line"

 

I only wish they're gonna do a major overhaul of their engine one day. But i'm not sure they get the money to do this, nor the will.

The Ghz barrier is true. 12 years ago, a friend told me : the future is multi-processors. twice as fast. I replied : no, the future will be Ghz-Thz.

i was wrong.

Look at you guys, most of you are linking his PC's spec in his signature.

DCS is not intended to challenge Prime95 nor Cinebench.

 

It's not the only thing, but a real few can run DCS fine.

I will not advise my friends to buy this, because i already know i have the best hardware in all rounds compared to them, an DCSBS2 is hitting 30fps MAX while not being a GPU bottleneck.

 

TL;DR :

I hope ED wrote somewhere on a paper to upgrade their engine for true multicore. even if i read they hadn't.

Let the GPU rule this FP/S world, not the CPU :)

 

I voted the secret double life obviously. but i'm open to both choices :smartass:

Edited July 24, 2012 by Erforce

[Pyroflash]

TL;DR :

I hope ED wrote somewhere on a paper to upgrade their engine for true multicore. even if i read they hadn't.

Let the GPU rule this FP/S world, not the CPU :)

 

I voted the secret double life obviously. but i'm open to both choices :smartass:

 

They are upgrading it to utilize more than one core. The sound already runs it a separate thread, and upgrades will continue to be made to the engine as it becomes required. The fact of the matter is that many things that the engine needs to do are not going to be able to be done by the GPU, so the code needs to be more efficient in order to make better use of the CPU. This however, is no easy task.

 

Oh, and to see the benefits of having an F-15 over an F-22A, look no further than the F-15SE project. It is a low cost alternative based upon a proven platform. ED doesn't have the time, nor the resources to re-develop a whole new engine, but this does not mean that the current engine is a pushover. In fact, many of its limitations are purely limitations based on the need of the simulation itself. The fact is that flight sims are always going to be power hungry. They aren't going to have stellar looks, and those that do often have terrible performance.

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

Like Pyroflash said, all in good time. As ED replaces parts of the engine, they may well end up being sent off to run in their own threads, etc.

[plane00]

I don't like highly textured terrain, water, and so on...

It increases system loading much.

Appearance like real photograph isn't neccessary for experience of machinary control.

I think with less burden to system,this game could implement real like visual effect.

(I abort playing A-10c due to difficulty of applying patch.)

(and about black shark, how hard just flying as i please is !!! just I am blocked, and no more progress to flying :joystick:)

Edited August 8, 2012 by plane00

[cichlidfan]

(I abort playing A-10c due to difficulty of applying patch.)

 

You don't need to apply patches. Just download the latest version.

[GGTharos]

If all you want to do is simulate machinery control then no, you don't need highly textured ground.

 

If you want to simulate flying, which is a very visual activity, then you do need it.