I caved and bought it Tuesday night. I like the cut of it’s jib
It is the only western jet trainer we have.
The Spanish Air Force uses it to train future Hornet pilots, so I think it is perfect to have it in the sim.
It also has a nice cockpit layout and a cute shape. I am proud to be one of the first supporters of the module.
So these performance improvements people are writing about; is this just for VR or non-VR, both? No more stutters? Are we talking beta or release version?
This is beta version, or as I like to call it, the “One Week Ahead” version. I know people have their reasons for not being on beta branch, but at the current stage of DCS development, there is literally no reason to wait for the “stable” update. It is a copy paste job of what the Beta branch got last week. And assuming that a game breaking bug was released to Beta, they have always patched it the next day or two with a hotfix.
Probably ranting here, but to add to the update debate, I dont remember in the last 2 years an actual game breaking bug in beta to where I couldn’t play the game. And I can list numerous bugs that were pasted over to the stable version anyway.
I think they were made for VR but for some reason, TrackIR also got way better.
No VR here. I use TrackIR @ 1440p on a 32-inch G-sync display. The sim just feels smoother to me. I was getting a lot of TrackIR microstuttering with mirrors on while looking around (there’s a lot of discussion about this on the DCS forum). That seems to be much better. I can leave mirrors on now.
Also, heavy clouds seemed to produce occasional stuttering where FPS would drop by half for a few seconds. I have a few test missions that I fly after an update and I haven’t been able to reproduce this weather related stuttering yet.
Included as part of the F-14 maybe?
Or the Phantom we are not getting
My nephew is in the fourth grade right now. I’ll take bets he’s graduated high school before we see that Phantom.
More positively, the slew improvements are okay with some pretty heavy curvature. The AIM-7E is not recognized by the F/A-18s SMS.
You really know how to hurt a guy.
That’s the kind of bet that could cause a man to do a free DCS F-4J mod just to earn some quick cash.
Flew the P-51D-25 a bit tonight. The model and cockpit are very nice. It was pretty before but it is gorgeous now.
Still same octane and manifold as the -30 though, so no performance change.
My theory is that in order to up the octane and manifold they needed to release a -25 to keep the forums from going crazy that a -30 Pacific model didn’t have those settings. Flight Simming is a serious business.
Damn straight. DCS gets ripped apart – and I mean ripped apart – in the flight sim world. I guess I’m just not as dedicated an enthusiast. On other parts of the web, there was a lot of vocal negativity about the recent teaser video; served as a reminder to me why flight sim development wouldn’t be my top choice for a career move.
Do you mind if I ask why? I’d ask where as well but I’m not sure I want to know anyway… But I’m interested to know why dcs compares poorly to other sims am I missing something obvious?
Bear in mind this is from the perspective of an outsider who only had LOMAC in '04, FC in '08, then only entered DCS this past summer:
DCS has been known to be problematic and buggy in the past, difficult to work with, with lots of stuff breaking from version to version. ED also planned a lot of things that never came to fruition, in time frames that quickly lapsed. For example, the F-16 was planned almost a decade ago, along with an AH-64A. Coupled with troublesome communications and you get a community that tends to be very pessimistic and angry most of the time. It doesn’t help that DCS is pretty much it for modern combat simulators, so it’s practically the only game in town.
As a result, a lot of issues like the AI, the interface, missions, content, etc. tend to get brought to the front and magnified because they’re clear weak points of the game that haven’t been changed much for 15 years now. I won’t deny that these complaints do have merit, but I also believe that starting with 2.5, much of the game has shown a lot of improvement. What kept me out the longest was ED’s close affiliation with Starforce and Protection Technologies, the DRM of which ate a few of my optical drives back in '08.
I’m actually curious as well. There’s certainly things that I think other sims do better - BMS dynamic campaign, for example - but overall I think DCS is unmatched. That’s taking into account systems depth, aircraft available, aircraft in development, engine capabilities as well as future growth… I’m really not sure what argument could be made for anything else when it comes to a modern air combat simulation.
I don’t hold back with my criticisms of DCS, either. If I think something needs to be different, I’m not afraid to voice that opinion - not for the sake of complaining but for the desire to see it improve.
Maybe I’m not hanging out in the same spots, but I certainly haven’t seen any overwhelmingly negative vibes towards DCS.
- Edit - @Franze beat me to the reply. All valid points, for sure. A lot of the issues you mentioned are gripes I have as well but, as you said, DCS is the only show in town. I do believe they have the intention of improving these but it’s gonna take a good chunk of time for certain items.
There’s a certain kind of people (often Germans ) who tend to focus on the negative.
Ze manifold pressure of ze 1942 model is 0.02 points too low, zis is UNACCEPTABLE!
Completely ignoring the fact that the simulation they are crying about is so meticulously detailed that those 0.02 points of manifold pressure actually matter.
One of the things I adore about mudspike is that we have none of that. Yes we do tend to have our little b*tchfests about the deplorable state of the AI, but that usually quickly gets glossed over to a cosy ‘cor, doesn’t this shot look lovely’ or awesome real life seastory about the time the USS Enterprise had a full core meltdown but @Navynuke99 went in in his underoos and punched it so hard it broke in pieces below critical mass.