|
How far wrong can one go buying the machine that runs the recommended specs listed on the DCS page? Quote: Recommended system requirements (HIGH graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD) + extra space for paid content ; Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 56 with 8GB VRAM or better; Joystick; requires internet activation. Or is this a recipe for frustration and pain? |
Vintage Ain't Retro.
|
Originally Posted By Z09SS: How far wrong can one go buying the machine that runs the recommended specs listed on the DCS page? Or is this a recipe for frustration and pain? Originally Posted By Z09SS: How far wrong can one go buying the machine that runs the recommended specs listed on the DCS page? Quote: Recommended system requirements (HIGH graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD) + extra space for paid content ; Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 56 with 8GB VRAM or better; Joystick; requires internet activation. Or is this a recipe for frustration and pain? Game is awesome but poorly optimized. Buy as much PC as yiu can afford. |
You Don't Have Time To Think Up There
Joined:
Oct 2003
Posts:
62691
EE: 100% (68)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Z09SS: How far wrong can one go buying the machine that runs the recommended specs listed on the DCS page? Or is this a recipe for frustration and pain? Originally Posted By Z09SS: How far wrong can one go buying the machine that runs the recommended specs listed on the DCS page? Quote: Recommended system requirements (HIGH graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD) + extra space for paid content ; Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 56 with 8GB VRAM or better; Joystick; requires internet activation. Or is this a recipe for frustration and pain? VR you're going to want a lot more. If you plan on buying a few terrains you're definitely going to want more SSD too. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By Z09SS: How far wrong can one go buying the machine that runs the recommended specs listed on the DCS page? Or is this a recipe for frustration and pain? |
What it boils down to is that they fear an effective resistance to their power: So, Left in power=Guns bad, mmmmkay...?, Right in power=Guns good!-thskirk
|
I recently upgraded and used my old video card as a placeholder until insane GPU prices normalize (maybe). I went from a very dated build that I had kept alive adding more ram and SSD's etc. I5-3570k @ 4GHZ 16GB DDR3 2600MHZ and a non M.2 SSD. Video card is a second hand EVGA 1070 SC. To now, using the same GPU, to a I7-13700K (5.4GHZ), 32GB DDR5 5600, and M.2 SSD (7300mbps). And honestly I've been running DCS at MAX on flat screen and the 1070 has new legs. VR it is NOT hanging in there. I can play single player flights with a few adversaries, but not long because of the low frame rate and enemy planes seemingly warping around. DCS needs fast CPU and a fast M.2 NVME SSD, ram utilization doesn't seem crazy high, although I believe that changes with settings. |
|
Originally Posted By Shung: Just saw that. Ok. Who is running a 4090 already ? I’m trying to decide if I should get one or not. Halved my GPU frametimes from a 3090... That being said in most cases DCS is CPU bound on a 12900k. Also 2.8 broke something with objects so MP servers with any real player load will eat CPU frames like mad after an hour or so since dead objects aren't getting cleaned up. Rest assured ED has been "investigating" but "can't replicate" for months, though all it would take is logging on to ECW for 30 min... |
|
Man, nothing in here about the 2023 vid? Phantom? All that work sitting on the Phantom waiting for it to drop, and the quality/screengrabs don't show 1/10th how good that model looks. Hopefully y'all get some HD screen shots before the end of the week to drool on. |
Maniac has responded with a scornful remark
Joined:
Jan 2005
Posts:
97191
EE: 100% (1)
USA
|
I think the CH-47 could be cool. I've been getting back into helos more (especially the Apache). It would be nice if when it eventually comes out there's a built in game mechanic where you can build a cargo loadout and set up a helo farp somewhere I was expecting a Blackhawk, but the -47 surprised the hell out of me |
|
Originally Posted By lancecriminal86: Man, nothing in here about the 2023 vid? Phantom? All that work sitting on the Phantom waiting for it to drop, and the quality/screengrabs don't show 1/10th how good that model looks. Hopefully y'all get some HD screen shots before the end of the week to drool on. I mean there really was nothing much in it IMO. Probably the most exciting thing was the .5sec flash of multicore/DLSS. All the major modules showcased were supposed to come either last year or even the year before. Same thing with the redone assets, like that S-3 upgrade has been talked about for at least 3 years if not more. Honestly IDK what they are thinking with the chinook, I guess its kinda cool, though again, MFD machine, yawn. |
You Don't Have Time To Think Up There
Joined:
Oct 2003
Posts:
62960
EE: 100% (68)
USA
|
Originally Posted By JackRebney: I'm a rotorhead that loves doing logistics in multiplayer, the Chinook has always been #1 on my wish list. I'm not super into it, but yeah there's a LOT of guys super excited about it. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By Harlikwin: I mean there really was nothing much in it IMO. Probably the most exciting thing was the .5sec flash of multicore/DLSS. All the major modules showcased were supposed to come either last year or even the year before. Same thing with the redone assets, like that S-3 upgrade has been talked about for at least 3 years if not more. Honestly IDK what they are thinking with the chinook, I guess its kinda cool, though again, MFD machine, yawn. |
What it boils down to is that they fear an effective resistance to their power: So, Left in power=Guns bad, mmmmkay...?, Right in power=Guns good!-thskirk
|
Originally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom: I agree just more flash and pizzazz in the video. I'm definitely excited for the airplanes in there. And if it's ED that's going to do the Chinook I'm going to hard-core facepalm. They have enough modules in the works right now Mi24, F16, Ah64, Hornet. I'm sure I'm forgetting one or 2. It is ED doing the 47. |
 2023: The year of the Strike Eagle Can't wait. Spinning up a squadron when it comes out! |
|
Originally Posted By MoNkEyTurbo: I recently upgraded and used my old video card as a placeholder until insane GPU prices normalize (maybe). I went from a very dated build that I had kept alive adding more ram and SSD's etc. I5-3570k @ 4GHZ 16GB DDR3 2600MHZ and a non M.2 SSD. Video card is a second hand EVGA 1070 SC. To now, using the same GPU, to a I7-13700K (5.4GHZ), 32GB DDR5 5600, and M.2 SSD (7300mbps). And honestly I've been running DCS at MAX on flat screen and the 1070 has new legs. VR it is NOT hanging in there. I can play single player flights with a few adversaries, but not long because of the low frame rate and enemy planes seemingly warping around. DCS needs fast CPU and a fast M.2 NVME SSD, ram utilization doesn't seem crazy high, although I believe that changes with settings. Wow! I bought a well-rated M.2 (Sabrent Rocket Gen 4) drive about 6 months ago, and it's maxing out at 5,300 Mb/s on ATTO Drive Test. |
It's so annoying trying to have a Socratic argument with a psychopath.
|
Some gun cam video footage I made from a night on my pvp warbirds server. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KHb85QKGPKY I also posted a separate post about how this server operates and that I am also looking for up to 5 new people to join my competition team for modern jets. Currently flying SATAL comp with Satac coming up. See my other post in the war gaming section if interested. |
|
H Originally Posted By cone256: Still not playing until the A-6 is released Hooo boy, it's going to be a loong long time. You'll be seeing slightly older Tomcats, AI Intruders, F-4Es (plural), Typhoons, Navy Phantoms all before the Intruder is even going to think about being a flyable module. And if what's coming down the pipe actually starts hitting the sim this year you might actually be missing out on a lot of fun. I get it, I really want to do the Intruder, hell I'll be one of the guys painting it and I already started on the pilot helmets just to have something started for the team, but it's a long way off. But some of the core in DCS needs to have some things added for the Intruder to work properly as I understand, including pilot/BN animations and them being in the same cockpit together, plus probably some more systems and AI stuff along with multithreading to have a really nice, deep ground search radar. |
|
Originally Posted By lancecriminal86: H Hooo boy, it's going to be a loong long time. You'll be seeing slightly older Tomcats, AI Intruders, F-4Es (plural), Typhoons, Navy Phantoms all before the Intruder is even going to think about being a flyable module. And if what's coming down the pipe actually starts hitting the sim this year you might actually be missing out on a lot of fun. I get it, I really want to do the Intruder, hell I'll be one of the guys painting it and I already started on the pilot helmets just to have something started for the team, but it's a long way off. But some of the core in DCS needs to have some things added for the Intruder to work properly as I understand, including pilot/BN animations and them being in the same cockpit together, plus probably some more systems and AI stuff along with multithreading to have a really nice, deep ground search radar. Originally Posted By lancecriminal86: H Originally Posted By cone256: Still not playing until the A-6 is released Hooo boy, it's going to be a loong long time. You'll be seeing slightly older Tomcats, AI Intruders, F-4Es (plural), Typhoons, Navy Phantoms all before the Intruder is even going to think about being a flyable module. And if what's coming down the pipe actually starts hitting the sim this year you might actually be missing out on a lot of fun. I get it, I really want to do the Intruder, hell I'll be one of the guys painting it and I already started on the pilot helmets just to have something started for the team, but it's a long way off. But some of the core in DCS needs to have some things added for the Intruder to work properly as I understand, including pilot/BN animations and them being in the same cockpit together, plus probably some more systems and AI stuff along with multithreading to have a really nice, deep ground search radar. I just use it as an excuse so I don't buy a stupid expensive computer 
|
 DCS: F-15E Strike Eagle | Pre-Order Trailer It's almost here. 
|
You Don't Have Time To Think Up There
Joined:
Oct 2003
Posts:
63026
EE: 100% (68)
USA
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Pre-ordered....really just for the discount, was going to order at some point anyway. Same. I haven’t touched DCS for more than a year(almost two actually). I’ve been wanting to get back in and the Strike Eagle activated my almonds. |
|
Originally Posted By BRS1912: No offense, but your comment has no basis in reality. How many kills does the Eurofighter have? " |
NRA - Benefactor Life Member
|
Originally Posted By BRS1912: No offense, but your comment has no basis in reality. How many kills does the Eurofighter have? |
What it boils down to is that they fear an effective resistance to their power: So, Left in power=Guns bad, mmmmkay...?, Right in power=Guns good!-thskirk
|
Originally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom: LOL in DCS it's been more or less recognized that the EF will be one of the most technologically advanced fighters in the game. MBDA Meteors are supposed to outclass the AMRAAM C5 that is in game are they not? Its gonna be a made up unicorn plane in DCS. They have docs for maybe an early 2000's plane for some of the systems and aero, they absolutely don't have credible shit for Captor, Pirate, the rest of it. And Meteor entered service in 2016. Its just gonna be a made up frankenplane, with a bit "i win button" for offline guys that get their jollies like that. Meteor will be banned in any PVP server by default, probably the EF in general as well. Its gonna be the western equivalent to the Jeff in terms of systems modeling, i.e. made up. But I am looking forward to the F4. DCS just needs to realize CW stuff is where its at. |
You Don't Have Time To Think Up There
Joined:
Oct 2003
Posts:
63029
EE: 100% (68)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Harlikwin: Its gonna be a made up unicorn plane in DCS. They have docs for maybe an early 2000's plane for some of the systems and aero, they absolutely don't have credible shit for Captor, Pirate, the rest of it. And Meteor entered service in 2016. Its just gonna be a made up frankenplane, with a bit "i win button" for offline guys that get their jollies like that. Meteor will be banned in any PVP server by default, probably the EF in general as well. Its gonna be the western equivalent to the Jeff in terms of systems modeling, i.e. made up. But I am looking forward to the F4. DCS just needs to realize CW stuff is where its at. Originally Posted By Harlikwin: Originally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom: LOL in DCS it's been more or less recognized that the EF will be one of the most technologically advanced fighters in the game. MBDA Meteors are supposed to outclass the AMRAAM C5 that is in game are they not? Its gonna be a made up unicorn plane in DCS. They have docs for maybe an early 2000's plane for some of the systems and aero, they absolutely don't have credible shit for Captor, Pirate, the rest of it. And Meteor entered service in 2016. Its just gonna be a made up frankenplane, with a bit "i win button" for offline guys that get their jollies like that. Meteor will be banned in any PVP server by default, probably the EF in general as well. Its gonna be the western equivalent to the Jeff in terms of systems modeling, i.e. made up. But I am looking forward to the F4. DCS just needs to realize CW stuff is where its at. People are going to have fun with post CW stuff though so.. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
You Don't Have Time To Think Up There
Joined:
Oct 2003
Posts:
63030
EE: 100% (68)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Harlikwin: BS3 and the Jeff and now the j8PP clearly demonstrate the market share for badly modeled modern planes. Originally Posted By Harlikwin: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: People are going to have fun with post CW stuff though so.. BS3 and the Jeff and now the j8PP clearly demonstrate the market share for badly modeled modern planes. I always wanted to fly Hornets in real life. This is as close as I'm going to get. I like the CW stuff too, but the modern jets are fun, modeling problems or not. I suspect this comes down to the "let people enjoy things" argument. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: I always wanted to fly Hornets in real life. This is as close as I'm going to get. I like the CW stuff too, but the modern jets are fun, modeling problems or not. I suspect this comes down to the "let people enjoy things" argument. I'm sure they will sell well, but again, it will be modeled about as well as the hornet so depending how much accuracy matters to you. |
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: People are going to have fun with post CW stuff though so.. Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By Harlikwin: Originally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom: LOL in DCS it's been more or less recognized that the EF will be one of the most technologically advanced fighters in the game. MBDA Meteors are supposed to outclass the AMRAAM C5 that is in game are they not? Its gonna be a made up unicorn plane in DCS. They have docs for maybe an early 2000's plane for some of the systems and aero, they absolutely don't have credible shit for Captor, Pirate, the rest of it. And Meteor entered service in 2016. Its just gonna be a made up frankenplane, with a bit "i win button" for offline guys that get their jollies like that. Meteor will be banned in any PVP server by default, probably the EF in general as well. Its gonna be the western equivalent to the Jeff in terms of systems modeling, i.e. made up. But I am looking forward to the F4. DCS just needs to realize CW stuff is where its at. People are going to have fun with post CW stuff though so.. A problem with Cold War is the vast variety of variants. The much lighter duty Strike Fighters shines a good light on that. When you stop doing a survey sim and start into the study sim world the differences between an F-4B and a Project Shoehorn F-4B matter. Then the progressive changes to the EW fit in '67 and '69. Plus changes to the wings from parallel developments that were happening in the Air Force versions, and drooping ailerons and and and... You get four distinct versions of just the F-4B. F-4E is just as varied in US service and the export versions are normally changed from the production version we used. Yes, you can use one as a stand-in for another, but at the end of the day in a study sim, you know you're really surveying at that point. I've noticed a tendency for the developers to go for the last version of something rather than the most common one. And most common isn't even always the most numerous version made! Making the Crusader as the F-8J when the F-8E saw the most combat and the F-8K lingered longest in US service (discounting the RF-8G). Or the French F-8E(FN) being the last new-made and last in service. And the older planes are things we can actually expect to know everything about and to have all the features operating correctly without speculation. Even for something as late as an F-16A or F-15A we know more than an early F-16C or F-15C. I occasionally wonder if the true problem is that Red Air isn't so spectacular during this time frame, especially if we're not using the retarded Vietnam rules of engagement and tactics against them. |
Vintage Ain't Retro.
You Don't Have Time To Think Up There
Joined:
Oct 2003
Posts:
63031
EE: 100% (68)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Harlikwin: I'm sure they will sell well, but again, it will be modeled about as well as the hornet. Originally Posted By Harlikwin: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: I always wanted to fly Hornets in real life. This is as close as I'm going to get. I like the CW stuff too, but the modern jets are fun, modeling problems or not. I suspect this comes down to the "let people enjoy things" argument. I'm sure they will sell well, but again, it will be modeled about as well as the hornet. And ED will make money, and people will have fun, and people that don't like it will fly in CW servers or WW2 servers. Seems like a win win to me. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
You Don't Have Time To Think Up There
Joined:
Oct 2003
Posts:
63032
EE: 100% (68)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Z09SS: A problem with Cold War is the vast variety of variants. The much lighter duty Strike Fighters shines a good light on that. When you stop doing a survey sim and start into the study sim world the differences between an F-4B and a Project Shoehorn F-4B matter. Then the progressive changes to the EW fit in '67 and '69. Plus changes to the wings from parallel developments that were happening in the Air Force versions, and drooping ailerons and and and... You get four distinct versions of just the F-4B. F-4E is just as varied in US service and the export versions are normally changed from the production version we used. Yes, you can use one as a stand-in for another, but at the end of the day in a study sim, you know you're really surveying at that point. I've noticed a tendency for the developers to go for the last version of something rather than the most common one. And most common isn't even always the most numerous version made! Making the Crusader as the F-8J when the F-8E saw the most combat and the F-8K lingered longest in US service (discounting the RF-8G). Or the French F-8E(FN) being the last new-made and last in service. And the older planes are things we can actually expect to know everything about and to have all the features operating correctly without speculation. Even for something as late as an F-16A or F-15A we know more than an early F-16C or F-15C. I occasionally wonder if the true problem is that Red Air isn't so spectacular during this time frame, especially if we're not using the retarded Vietnam rules of engagement and tactics against them. Originally Posted By Z09SS: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By Harlikwin: Originally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom: LOL in DCS it's been more or less recognized that the EF will be one of the most technologically advanced fighters in the game. MBDA Meteors are supposed to outclass the AMRAAM C5 that is in game are they not? Its gonna be a made up unicorn plane in DCS. They have docs for maybe an early 2000's plane for some of the systems and aero, they absolutely don't have credible shit for Captor, Pirate, the rest of it. And Meteor entered service in 2016. Its just gonna be a made up frankenplane, with a bit "i win button" for offline guys that get their jollies like that. Meteor will be banned in any PVP server by default, probably the EF in general as well. Its gonna be the western equivalent to the Jeff in terms of systems modeling, i.e. made up. But I am looking forward to the F4. DCS just needs to realize CW stuff is where its at. People are going to have fun with post CW stuff though so.. A problem with Cold War is the vast variety of variants. The much lighter duty Strike Fighters shines a good light on that. When you stop doing a survey sim and start into the study sim world the differences between an F-4B and a Project Shoehorn F-4B matter. Then the progressive changes to the EW fit in '67 and '69. Plus changes to the wings from parallel developments that were happening in the Air Force versions, and drooping ailerons and and and... You get four distinct versions of just the F-4B. F-4E is just as varied in US service and the export versions are normally changed from the production version we used. Yes, you can use one as a stand-in for another, but at the end of the day in a study sim, you know you're really surveying at that point. I've noticed a tendency for the developers to go for the last version of something rather than the most common one. And most common isn't even always the most numerous version made! Making the Crusader as the F-8J when the F-8E saw the most combat and the F-8K lingered longest in US service (discounting the RF-8G). Or the French F-8E(FN) being the last new-made and last in service. And the older planes are things we can actually expect to know everything about and to have all the features operating correctly without speculation. Even for something as late as an F-16A or F-15A we know more than an early F-16C or F-15C. I occasionally wonder if the true problem is that Red Air isn't so spectacular during this time frame, especially if we're not using the retarded Vietnam rules of engagement and tactics against them. Yeah, that's a problem for sure. I mean think about the fact that the F-16 and the F-86 were both CW planes too. It's a really hard problem to solve, and unless you have multiple variants, then also multiple servers- say a Korean era server, then an early Vietnam era server, then a late Nam one, then a Soviet AFG era....etc.... you get my point. It's a big problem without a great solution until we get enough people playing we could actually populate all those servers, and enough devs to create all the "compatible" era jets too. I like it all, so I'm just going to enjoy myself as much as I can, understanding that there's some limitations that are unlikely to go away. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By Z09SS: A problem with Cold War is the vast variety of variants. The much lighter duty Strike Fighters shines a good light on that. When you stop doing a survey sim and start into the study sim world the differences between an F-4B and a Project Shoehorn F-4B matter. Then the progressive changes to the EW fit in '67 and '69. Plus changes to the wings from parallel developments that were happening in the Air Force versions, and drooping ailerons and and and... Originally Posted By Z09SS: A problem with Cold War is the vast variety of variants. The much lighter duty Strike Fighters shines a good light on that. When you stop doing a survey sim and start into the study sim world the differences between an F-4B and a Project Shoehorn F-4B matter. Then the progressive changes to the EW fit in '67 and '69. Plus changes to the wings from parallel developments that were happening in the Air Force versions, and drooping ailerons and and and... Its a valid criticism, but you start with major planes and variants and move on from there as it makes sense to fill it in. Speaking of the light duty stuff, I'd far rather see new devs do those than the idiotic yet another trainer. Complexity is about the same and you can really fill out some of the more obscure planes that way. I.e. Vampires, hunters etc. You get four distinct versions of just the F-4B. F-4E is just as varied in US service and the export versions are normally changed from the production version we used. Yes, you can use one as a stand-in for another, but at the end of the day in a study sim, you know you're really surveying at that point. I've noticed a tendency for the developers to go for the last version of something rather than the most common one. And most common isn't even always the most numerous version made! Making the Crusader as the F-8J when the F-8E saw the most combat and the F-8K lingered longest in US service (discounting the RF-8G). Or the French F-8E(FN) being the last new-made and last in service. And the older planes are things we can actually expect to know everything about and to have all the features operating correctly without speculation. Even for something as late as an F-16A or F-15A we know more than an early F-16C or F-15C. Yeah I lament that fact the trend seems to be the latest version, or the most modern, its kinda lame versus the most used. The F8J I understand was partly because it actually is closer to the french one as well so its a bit of a middle ground. Though TBH at this point, I just want M3 to push out the F4U and fix the fucking mig21. I occasionally wonder if the true problem is that Red Air isn't so spectacular during this time frame, especially if we're not using the retarded Vietnam rules of engagement and tactics against them. Actually, I think in terms of balance, people will be surprised. Red air does just fine vs blue as long as the sides are only like 2:1 to their disadvantage. At least in PVP (which is ironic as fuck given it should be 4:1 in their favor historically). Once the F4 and the Mig23 come out I think CW will be pretty good. Add in the upcoming A7, Kfir, Mig17 it will be fun. The only major hole at this point is a good red striker, hopefully M3/OctoG figure it out though, but I suspect its gonna be a long wait. I'd also love to see like a circa 84 F16A blk 15, but well, I guess the J8-PP is gonna have to fill in for it... |
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Yeah, that's a problem for sure. I mean think about the fact that the F-16 and the F-86 were both CW planes too. It's a really hard problem to solve, and unless you have multiple variants, then also multiple servers- say a Korean era server, then an early Vietnam era server, then a late Nam one, then a Soviet AFG era....etc.... you get my point. It's a big problem without a great solution until we get enough people playing we could actually populate all those servers, and enough devs to create all the "compatible" era jets too. I like it all, so I'm just going to enjoy myself as much as I can, understanding that there's some limitations that are unlikely to go away. At least for MP, we now have actual people that know how the fuck to build fun PVP servers in those eras which helps alot. ECW has 15k people player base and is basically full 24/7. TBF is smaller, and harder since its 80's but its getting there as well. And PVP for the most part removes many of the major problems with the DCS core engine sucking. |
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Yeah, that's a problem for sure. I mean think about the fact that the F-16 and the F-86 were both CW planes too. It's a really hard problem to solve, and unless you have multiple variants, then also multiple servers- say a Korean era server, then an early Vietnam era server, then a late Nam one, then a Soviet AFG era....etc.... you get my point. It's a big problem without a great solution until we get enough people playing we could actually populate all those servers, and enough devs to create all the "compatible" era jets too. I like it all, so I'm just going to enjoy myself as much as I can, understanding that there's some limitations that are unlikely to go away. ECW and TBF basically solve this by just rotating maps/eras. Like ECW has a 60's ish map with aim9B being the highest tech missile. And then a 70's server with more modern missiles. Plane set is mostly the same, but they play very different. Same thing with TBF, early 80's, and then a GW era 'ish server. You do have to take some liberties for balance, but they are really fun servers. |
You Don't Have Time To Think Up There
Joined:
Oct 2003
Posts:
63033
EE: 100% (68)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Harlikwin: ECW and TBF basically solve this by just rotating maps/eras. Like ECW has a 60's ish map with aim9B being the highest tech missile. And then a 70's server with more modern missiles. Plane set is mostly the same, but they play very different. Same thing with TBF, early 80's, and then a GW era 'ish server. You do have to take some liberties for balance, but they are really fun servers. Originally Posted By Harlikwin: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Yeah, that's a problem for sure. I mean think about the fact that the F-16 and the F-86 were both CW planes too. It's a really hard problem to solve, and unless you have multiple variants, then also multiple servers- say a Korean era server, then an early Vietnam era server, then a late Nam one, then a Soviet AFG era....etc.... you get my point. It's a big problem without a great solution until we get enough people playing we could actually populate all those servers, and enough devs to create all the "compatible" era jets too. I like it all, so I'm just going to enjoy myself as much as I can, understanding that there's some limitations that are unlikely to go away. ECW and TBF basically solve this by just rotating maps/eras. Like ECW has a 60's ish map with aim9B being the highest tech missile. And then a 70's server with more modern missiles. Plane set is mostly the same, but they play very different. Same thing with TBF, early 80's, and then a GW era 'ish server. You do have to take some liberties for balance, but they are really fun servers. That's cool. I will get more into CW era stuff when the F4 comes out. I'm not arguing your points, you are 100% correct, I'm just pointing out that modeled totally correct or not, carrier ops in a Hornet is FUN, and flying the EF will be as well (for me and a lot of others at least). |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By Harlikwin: Its gonna be a made up unicorn plane in DCS. They have docs for maybe an early 2000's plane for some of the systems and aero, they absolutely don't have credible shit for Captor, Pirate, the rest of it. And Meteor entered service in 2016. Its just gonna be a made up frankenplane, with a bit "i win button" for offline guys that get their jollies like that. Meteor will be banned in any PVP server by default, probably the EF in general as well. Its gonna be the western equivalent to the Jeff in terms of systems modeling, i.e. made up. But I am looking forward to the F4. DCS just needs to realize CW stuff is where its at. |
What it boils down to is that they fear an effective resistance to their power: So, Left in power=Guns bad, mmmmkay...?, Right in power=Guns good!-thskirk
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: That's cool. I will get more into CW era stuff when the F4 comes out. I'm not arguing your points, you are 100% correct, I'm just pointing out that modeled totally correct or not, carrier ops in a Hornet is FUN, and flying the EF will be as well (for me and a lot of others at least). Once we have the F4 and 23, the CW stuff should be pretty interesting. And honestly the basic carrier landing stuff is probably one of the better done things about the hornet. As for the EF I'm sure people will have fun with it, that was never in question, it just won't be a realistic module IMO. Honestly I feel like DCS modern is mostly a boondoggle. The jets can't be done to a very high level of fidelity, and honestly power-point bombing runs are kinda boring for me, as is fox3 tennis. Plus ultimately modern is basically a blue-on-blue simulator. Like how many more modern jets can ED credibly make after the EF... A rafale or 2000-5 is about it for france. We might get an early model superbug. But thats truly about it. Deka just basically admitted they can't make anything modern chinese with that J-8PP annoucement. And aside from like a 1984 verision of the mig29 that may eventually come, thats about it. Meanwhile... Cold war. You have a shitload of planes left to do, even the big names like the 104, 105, jaguar, EE-lighting, mirage3 etc, that are actually relatively well balanced technology wise for any given decade up until the late 80's and they are ton of fun to employ with specific niches. So CW eventually will become the core focus of DCS whether or not anyone likes it or not. |
|
Originally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom: Fair enough, I agree with that too my most anticipated modules are the F4 this year and MiG 23 whenever the hell Raaz wants. lol I'm guessing the F4 comes maybe mid year. And 23 if it comes this year at all will be like late Dec, or more likely next year sometime, it will likely also be feature incomplete. I assume the F15 release is gonna soak up resources for 6 months fixing bugs etc. after its released. But the 23 team lead is saying there is a chance of a 23 in 23. |