Jump to content

Brisse

Members
  • Posts

    1175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brisse

  1. There's a place for both I think. We don't have to restrict peoples choices now that DCS supports multiple maps :) I'm sure there are some helicopter-pilots who would love a small but detailed map.
  2. Hello! With 2.0 supporting the ability to add new maps, and carrier ops soon being a more important part of DCS, I think it makes sense to add a map with just open sea. I can't imagine that would take much work effort to implement, right? With little work effort involved, it would make sense if it was released as another free map next to Caucasus. Thoughts?
  3. Yes mattebubben, that would be my dream-map :)
  4. I'm not sure what the size limits are on the terrains but I was hoping for east coast, including Karlskrona (MarinB), Ronneby/Kallinge (F17), possibly F12 at Kalmar even though it was decommissioned 1980, and of course Öland and Gotland. Would be amazing if they could somehow put Kaliningrad and some of the South/East Baltic coastal area in there. I think that would still be slightly smaller than the Caucasus map, so maybe it's optimistic from my side, but I don't think it's impossible. A lot of it is open sea which takes less work to make.
  5. Well, your graphics card is mediocre at best while your CPU is fairly strong so you might never be able to balance out the loads perfectly. I see that you have clutter/brushes maxed out. I'm not sure that's a good idea. It can have a pretty big impact on frame-rate. Try to lower the setting to half, or even turning it off and see how your frame-rate and system loads are affected.
  6. If you have a weak graphics card, or if it doesn't have enough vram, then I definitely recommend lowering MSAA to 2x. It's one of those settings that almost purely affects the GPU, and not the CPU. Considering your CPU-usage is low, you want to lower all the GPU-dependent settings until you are happy with your frame-rate. As your frame-rate increases, your CPU usage will increase as well and your system will end up running in a more balanced state.
  7. The new game engine relies way more on graphics card, and frankly, yours is way below the recommended system requirements: I can imagine this change being annoying for those with older PC's but the old engine wasn't able to use modern PC's to their full potential. The new engine does that much better, and this change was necessary for DCS to move forwards as opposed to being stuck in the past.
  8. Last minute? Haha :) Xbone controller bundle was announced last summer (June) at the same time that the Touch controllers were announced. That's not "last minute".
  9. Before the pre order opened I was very reluctant to buy the DK2. I thought that once the CV1 is out, the DK2 will become worthless. Now that I know the price and how long it will take to get a CV1, I'm thinking that maybe a second hand DK2 is viable anyway, just to get a taste of VR. Question to anyone out there with a DK2: Do you think it's worth getting a DK2 for this reason at this time? I can get a good deal on a second hand DK2. Less than 1/3 of the price that I would have to pay for CV1. What about future support from Oculus? Will it work with future games and runtime releases?
  10. There is no such development priority. The reason it was updated for 2.0 was that ED released a new DLC Campaign for Nevada. We should be really happy that they bundled the M2000 updates in there despite not even mentioning them in the changelog. It is highly likely that the M2000 will get the same (or newer) update in 1.5 next time that is patched, but it's ED that release patches, not Razbam.
  11. BitMaster: Note that the ~100fps numbers are average framerate while playing back a specific track. Look at the max fps, and you see that it even approaches 200fps is some cases. Obviously there's no fps cap involved. I'm absolutely certain that if you played back the same track on your PC, you would see no more than around 100fps average either.
  12. The GTX970 is slightly better for DCS. The R9 390 is slightly faster overall, so if you play other games you might keep that in mind. DCS however is still slightly Nvidia biased even with the new game engine. AMD is a perfectly viable alternative now though. Before the new game engine, DCS was almost unplayable on AMD cards. See this thread for comprehensive analysis: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157374&highlight=tiborr
  13. Weird. I had no problem hitting Mach 2.2.
  14. Once is enough, unless you alt-tab out of the game, because then you will have to redo alt+enter after going back into the game.
  15. Tried analogue TDC slew with my HOTAS Cougar and it doesn't work. Has anyone gotten it to work?
  16. Really? I'm pretty certain my numbers are right. Are you sure you are at MIL power, and not 85% or something? My numbers are the ones who are closer to the real flight envelope after all, and I didn't even cross check that until after I was done with my graph. Of course. It would be hard to obtain dynamic data for me to use and I didn't mean to do any serious work. It was just meant as a little hint to show Rlaxoxo that what he saw in his fairly unscientific test (drag race!) wasn't completely unreasonable. I just used the gross weight from each DCS manual. Maybe that was reckless of me. Should have fired up the mission editor and fetch my numbers from there using similar configurations. Clean config 100% fuel: M2000-C T/W = 0.89 MiG-21bis T/W = 1.15 (with em AB) So the relative T/W is still similar to my last calculations when I used gross weight from each manual.
  17. 97 kN at full emergency afterburner Source: Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, page 39, By Alexander Mladenov,Adam Tooby Let's do that calculation again :) T/W = 97000/(8725*9.81)= 1.13
  18. Rlaxoxo's results may very well be realistic. I calculated the thrust to weight ratios of both aircraft at gross weight. MiG-21bis 8 725 kg 71 kN static thrust with afterburner T/W = 71000/(8725*9.81)= 0.83 M2000-C 13 800 kg 95.1 kN static thrust with afterburner T/W = 95100/(13800*9.81)= 0.70
  19. Yes, I noticed those too, so I can confirm that.
  20. I checked the "last modified" date of "missiles_data.lua" and it's an older date so I'm going to assume nothing happened to the missiles in this patch.
  21. Sorry, I did it like that on purpose because I also posted it in another thread where I wanted to compare it to a graph another forum member did before the update and he had the axes like this. It's easier to make direct comparisons between the two that way.
  22. After today's patch: Note: Didn't bother to plot the surpercruise area, but I tried briefly and it will supercruise roughly similar to the 5F flight manual graph in the citation. Tried 45 000ft but it isn't able to sustain level flight there currently. Overall, it looks much better than before. Still need some minor tweaking though :)
  23. Just finished this graph. Does look a little underperforming at high altitude. Wasn't able to sustain flight at 45 000ft. It's still much closer than previous version though. Note: It will supercruise at certain altitudes if you use the AB to punch through the transsonic region, but I didn't bother to put it in my graph.
×
×
  • Create New...