Jump to content

DCS, Good Platform For the Future FS?


DCS, Good Platform For the Future FS?  

93 members have voted

  1. 1. DCS, Good Platform For the Future FS?

    • Yes
      66
    • No
      27


Recommended Posts

Posted
13 FPS average? You're kidding right? You need 30 to have a decent experience. Turn the settings ALL the way down or get a better computer. Simple as that, really.

 

 

"DCS runs crap on my computer".

 

"Of course the problem is you, your computer and your unwillingness to spend more money on it."

 

 

 

"FSX runs crap on my computer."

 

"Of course the problem is FSX, that crappy outdated engine".

 

 

I love it.

  • Like 2
Posted
"DCS runs crap on my computer".

 

"Of course the problem is you, your computer and your unwillingness to spend more money on it."

 

 

 

"FSX runs crap on my computer."

 

"Of course the problem is FSX, that crappy outdated engine".

 

 

I love it.

 

You're conflating a disparate set of arguments that should be kept separate. Of course you need good up to date hardware to be able to run flight simulation at it's best. There should be no other expectation ... and to expect otherwise is silly. :D

 

However, some people do think FSX is crappy, I am among them. There're many reasons for this, and people more learned than I can go into the details ... ask Aaron, he's a mate of mine! :thumbup:

At my level of scientific and tech know how (nil, zilch, nada ... zero) I rely on experiential 'feel' coupled with the reasoning of my friends .. they are people I trust.

 

No need to be upset about this opinion on the merits of FSX ... lets move on! :D

"A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft."

Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps

Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!

Posted

A big problem I see with a FSX wargame is that there is no damage models on any aircraft. Yes some have system failures implemented but can pieces break off and will the flight model reflect this? All warplane need to be retooled. No FSX@ war mod can make that happen. They just put an animation of smoke and fire on the plane and it looks like garbage. Who will decide how weapons operate and how powerful or accurate they can be? Any type of competitive play would be out also.

 

Don't get me wrong I like FSX for what it is but since MS killed CFS so long ago it just doesn't seem like a viable endeavor.

 

Combat pilot might succeed but I have yet to see a screenshot or video of actual combat or damage modeling. It seems all about pilot training and pay 2 play.

 

I doubt ED has anything to worry about for several years....if ever.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

System Specs

 

Intel I7-3930K, Asrock EXTREME9, EVGA TITAN, Mushkin Chronos SSD, 16GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z series 2133, TM Warthog and MFD's, Saitek Proflight Combat pedals, TrackIR 5 + TrackClip PRO, Windows 7 x64, 3-Asus VS2248H-P monitors, Thermaltake Level 10 GT, Obutto cockpit

 

Posted

Creating those effects on the flight model isnt too hard...already happens actually. Visual model isnt too hard either. Just time consuming to make all the broken bits.

Posted (edited)

but but but... it's... Combat Simulator

X-plane takes now over users that MS left without support.

 

I'd like DCS to be turned into popular E-sport some day with battles broadcasted all over ;)

Edited by Shaman

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Posted (edited)
"DCS runs crap on my computer".

 

"Of course the problem is you, your computer and your unwillingness to spend more money on it."

 

"FSX runs crap on my computer."

 

"Of course the problem is FSX, that crappy outdated engine".

 

 

I love it.

 

That is chalking up FSX to be as efficiently designed as DCS. FSX is inherently flawed because it processes things in a very CPU bound fashon. No matter how beefy your machine is it can be brought to it's knees and still look like crap in-game. FSX was designed in a pre-GPU-compute era where single core CPUs dominated the marketplace. FSX runs like a turd even on the best of hardware without using obscure voodoo on it's preference files. In fact it's so bad that many people still use FS9 in preference to FSX. Prepar3d is one way of addressing many of those issues, but at the core it's still flawed without extensive rewrite.

Edited by BHawthorne
Posted
That is chalking up FSX to be as efficiently designed as DCS. FSX is inherently flawed because it processes things in a very CPU bound fashon. No matter how beefy your machine is it can be brought to it's knees and still look like crap in-game. FSX was designed in a pre-GPU-compute era where single core CPUs dominated the marketplace. FSX runs like a turd even on the best of hardware without using obscure voodoo on it's preference files. In fact it's so bad that many people still use FS9 in preference to FSX. Prepar3d is one way of addressing many of those issues, but at the core it's still flawed without extensive rewrite.

 

Do you work for ED? Have you compared their source code and FSX? Because you may seem very resolute in your ideas, but to me is just something like could have been copied and pasted from the internet.

 

So if you would like to elaborate exactly how DCS does not work in a "CPU bound fashion" (since in your opinion this is the fundamental problem in FSX, which it really isn't), I would love to hear it.

 

I just find it funny that people like to spout about things they don't have a clue about. If you have a better idea of how to make a simulator of the FSX or XPlane scale run better, maybe its time to write a paper about it.

 

Not to say the lack of appreciation for the hard work of those people. I wonder what would be your reaction if someone said some work you done was utter crap without presenting any constructive arguments.

 

Tell me another flight sim that had a detailed ATC, weather, AI traffic (not only air, but on roads and sea), and the drawing distance and ground detail FS had. And that don't run like crap. The problem is some people made their objective to MAX OUT all sliders and install all the possible add-ons and still wanted it to run like butter, instead of enjoying the experience of flying in a simulated environment.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
Do you work for ED? Have you compared their source code and FSX? Because you may seem very resolute in your ideas, but to me is just something like could have been copied and pasted from the internet.

 

So if you would like to elaborate exactly how DCS does not work in a "CPU bound fashion" (since in your opinion this is the fundamental problem in FSX, which it really isn't), I would love to hear it.

 

I just find it funny that people like to spout about things they don't have a clue about. If you have a better idea of how to make a simulator of the FSX or XPlane scale run better, maybe its time to write a paper about it.

 

Not to say the lack of appreciation for the hard work of those people. I wonder what would be your reaction if someone said some work you done was utter crap without presenting any constructive arguments.

 

Tell me another flight sim that had a detailed ATC, weather, AI traffic (not only air, but on roads and sea), and the drawing distance and ground detail FS had. And that don't run like crap. The problem is some people made their objective to MAX OUT all sliders and install all the possible add-ons and still wanted it to run like butter, instead of enjoying the experience of flying in a simulated environment.

 

Do I work for ED?

No, your question is combative and rhetorical. Do you have a true interest in knowing who I work for? A few around here can tell you and it's relation to FSX.

 

Have I compared the source code between FSX and DCS?

There is no need to. Real world performance is a functional baseline to make quantitative statements on CPU bound performance.

 

Because you may seem very resolute in your ideas, but to me is just something like could have been copied and pasted from the internet.

Not sure what you're getting at here other than to insinuate I phoned in my answer without knowing what I'm talking about. I have years of experience with FSX so I call shenanigans on that. Why make such a statement when you have no idea of my background?

 

I just find it funny that people like to spout about things they don't have a clue about. If you have a better idea of how to make a simulator of the FSX or XPlane scale run better, maybe its time to write a paper about it?

You are aware of how the FSX process pipeline works correct? FSX is quite a bit more CPU bound than FS9 is. It has always been that way. Prepar3d is working on many of those shortcomings though. You can choke FSX with the latest hardware out there depending upon the settings used -- none of which have to be maxed out. These are not GPU bound choke points. If you don't understand many settings FSX can turn into a total slideshow and the settings are not intuitive by default.

 

Not to say the lack of appreciation for the hard work of those people. I wonder what would be your reaction if someone said some work you done was utter crap without presenting any constructive arguments.

I've used FSX for years longer than I have ever used DCS based sims. I'm well versed in multi-display integration for FSX. I do know FSX and how it behaves quite well. I also am used to people like you that go off flinging feces at anything it'll stick to if it's a post that doesn't agree with your flavor of personal opinion. People attack my work all the time in relation to the NTHUSIM product line and Immersaview. I'm used to people being arse hats on the internet because they hide behind anonymity that allows them to grow a set of balls stating things they'd never say in real life. Be mindful that very few people will give you any courtesy if you can't be courteous to others. Write a paper about it? I assist with third party software development and customer support for FSX related utilities and have maintained multiple FAQs for years now.

 

Tell me another flight sim that had a detailed ATC, weather, AI traffic (not only air, but on roads and sea), and the drawing distance and ground detail FS had. And that don't run like crap. The problem is some people made their objective to MAX OUT all sliders and install all the possible add-ons and still wanted it to run like butter, instead of enjoying the experience of flying in a simulated environment.

OK, how about FS9? It is a heck of a lot better optimized than FSX is. FSX is a half-finished product that lost development support due to bad marketing, budget and design decisions. It thrives despite those things, not because of them. Both FSX and Flight suffered from terminal spaghetti code that occurred over years of development. Things did not get better over the lifetime of MSFS, it got worse because of a mature codebase that was extended instead of being periodically rewritten and optimized. Digging through the orphaned unimplemented variables in MS Flight cfg files show the final terminal disease of that. At least LM understands that now with Prepar3d and is going through and rewriting a lot of the choke points in the ESP codebase in an active effort to improve and maintain the engine. Sliders? I edit cfg files directly in a text editor.

 

tl;dr

Logical Fallocy: When you don't like the message, attack the messenger? That is a really bad habit you should get over...

Edited by BHawthorne
Posted (edited)

OK, how about FS9? It is a heck of a lot better optimized than FSX is.

 

Yes, esp. because it runs on a single core, cockpit models are capped to 4mm per vertex distance and textures are capped at 1024x1024. :P

 

Both FSX and Flight suffered from terminal spaghetti code that occurred over years of development. Things did not get better over the lifetime of MSFS, it got worse because of a mature codebase that was extended instead of being periodically rewritten and optimized.

 

Well, the real question remains: is the DCS any better after all years of development starting back at Flanker and Lock On 1.0? We don't know that and I'm sure ED won't tell us ;) But the recent performance issues in 1.2.1 and hastily patching show that it is certainly not easy to keep all things in balance.

 

DCS may be a better engine than FSX, I won't argue with that. But it is still a very limited and closed platform compared to Xplane or FS series. At the current speed, it will be years before we get something suitable for everyone's needs, not only for jockeys who enjoy dogfighting P-51 vs. P-51 over modern Georgia or flying in the same MiG-29 6DOF incompatible cockpit for 10 years.

Edited by some1

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil WarBRD, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

  • 1 month later...
Posted

Do you think any civilian aircraft will be released soon (2-4 years) for DCS World?

Gotta catch them all bandits! :joystick:

Posted

I hope not

HaF 922, Asus rampage extreme 3 gene, I7 950 with Noctua D14, MSI gtx 460 hawk, G skill 1600 8gb, 1.5 giga samsung HD.

Track IR 5, Hall sensed Cougar, Hall sensed TM RCS TM Warthog(2283), TM MFD, Saitek pro combat rudder, Cougar MFD.

Posted
I hope not

 

I hope not.

 

Why not? I don't think I'd buy it but if I see some airliner in DCS while I fly my Flanker it would be a nice sight :photo:

PC specs:

Windows 11 Home | Asus TUF Gaming B850-Plus WiFi | AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D + LC 360 AIO | MSI RTX 5090 LC 360 AIO | 55" Samsung Odyssey Gen 2 | 64GB PC5-48000 DDR5 | 1TB M2 SSD for OS | 2TB M2 SSD for DCS | NZXT C1000 Gold ATX 3.1 1000W | TM Cougar Throttle, Floor Mounted MongoosT-50 Grip on TM Cougar board, MFG Crosswind, Track IR

Posted

Throw enough money, it can be done. But ED team is small and it takes a lot of time to develop single aircraft / terrain. If enough 2nd/3rd developers jump and start working, royalties may keep ED floating while keeping World updated. They (developers) will need to have high confidence that ED will stay with this product for a very long time and their time and effort will not be wasted. Will that happen? Time will tell....

Posted
Sure it looks worse up close, if the engine were to drastically increase landscape detail so to keep the poly count about constant, you would get horrible load stuttering when panning the view around.
has proven that it can be done: very detailed terrain, large terrain size, long view distance ... with acceptable performance. (demo available for download)

The current Flanker2/Lockon/DCS terrain engine is outdated, a single aircraft model probably contains more polygons than the entire visible terrain mesh ...

There's a reason why EDGE is being developed. We'll have to wait and see what it brings.

Posted
Tell me another flight sim that had a detailed ATC, weather, AI traffic (not only air, but on roads and sea), and the drawing distance and ground detail FS had. And that don't run like crap.
MSFS had some good features, as you mentioned, but it also failed in essential things like flight models.

The quality of MS' flyables, in terms of avionics, wasn't "as real as it gets" either.

Offering a global terrain also meant they had to make it generic, which kind of defeated the point of having a global terrain.

 

The problem is some people made their objective to MAX OUT all sliders and install all the possible add-ons and still wanted it to run like butter, instead of enjoying the experience of flying in a simulated environment.
Same thing goes for DCS ...
Posted
Why not?

 

Resources wasted on the development of some ugly bus would be resources not spent developing something infinitely more wonderful, like an Me 109.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...