Jump to content

LucShep

Members
  • Content Count

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LucShep

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/17/1975

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    - DCS World (various modules)
    - Strike Fighters 2 + all expansions (utterly modded)
    - IL-2 Great Battles
    - IL-2 1946 (VP Modpack)
    - FSX SE (utterly modded)
  • Location
    LX - PT
  • Interests
    Gaming/simming and modding, PC hardware, motorcycles

Recent Profile Visitors

1821 profile views
  1. Welcome to DCS! If you're just beginning with DCS World, and only have the free stock content such as the Sukoi Su-25T "Grach" (aka "Frogfoot") and the Caucasus map, then the tutorials by Robert Sogomonian are pretty good to start with. Some of his lessons are on much older versions of DCS (you'll notice the outdated graphics on his videos) but everything still translates into newer versions of DCS, so still very relevant as beginner tutorials. Don't worry if things at first look too complex and confusing (that's normal), give it time and patience, it'll sink in and mak
  2. Oh the 32-bit depth is just one part, and a pretty significant one (as Taz1004 already proven), but how about the 8K and 4K res textures on subjective things that you never have in close view, or in normals and specular tex (which could be half or even a forth of the size), or DXT5 format being used for textures with no-transparencies (should be at DXT1, half the size!), hmmm? It's been like that for years, and keeps going on. I'm seeing none graphical in-game difference worth noting myself with textures optimizations that I did for my own usage (smaller resolutions and correc
  3. I think you suffer from same problem as the devs - pay more attention to these forums and see people pointing out and exemplifying out what ED (and 3rd parties) should have already investigate and try implement/test/fix themselves: ...it's all right there. Combining such tweaks and suggestions on optimizations would go a very long away, all could be done already without interfering with any scripts, systems, avionics, physics, missions or campaigns, or whatever gameplay related subject, it has exactly ZERO relation to those. I'd also guess that it doesn't in
  4. No offense and with all due respect, but I think it's you having very low standards for what is acceptable in a game/sim. A GTX770 2GB is severely limited, too short both in performance and video-memory for DCS 2.5 (already was for DCS 1.5), and I can say this from experience as I too had a GTX770 2GB years ago during that transition. So it's a bit strange seeing you mentioning in previous posts that it's still "fine" in DCS 2.5 (it can't be). I have a fairly potent system for 1080P/75Hz (and OC'ed, both CPU and GPU) - actually quite a bit overkill for that screen resolution
  5. Thank you Pikey and BigNewy! I do understand that side of the argument, especially the artists defending their work, but there's a higher reason in all of this and it's worth trying. If that kind of desired minute detail requires such sacrifice of performance, then it's not worth it. The compromise, in favor of better use of resources, must be adopted. My take on this is that it's for the benefit of the collective. Perhaps make a separate DLC with those overkill textures if so inclined, for the single digit percentage(?) of users who are unworried about the noti
  6. Yep, exactly! Oh, and those reading my babbling here, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this "textures optimization" solution is a magic bullet for lower end hardware - it is not. But it'd enable a very noticeable improvement for smoother in-game performance for very capable GPUs like -not only but for example- GTX1660Super, GTX980Ti, RX5600 (etc) which do perform as good as a GTX1070 but are currently severely limited (stutter fest?) by their 6GB VRAM ceiling (even more problematic with modules like SC, F14, Syria and The Channel maps, etc). Issues caused by
  7. Yeah, true. But that's on a "normal" global scenario, not the one we currently live in. None of such GPUs are available, all globally out of stock. You may see a few on Ebay, being sold by scalpers and oportunistic sellers, at ludicrous, prohibitive prices (over double MSRP!!) but that isn't really a solution for most users. Which also means the userbase here, for which I suspect there's a very large chunk using GPUs with 6GB or less, are stuck on whatever they have right now. .....it makes the matter of VRAM and optimization even more worthy of attention.
  8. Well, I meant in case anyone from ED and 3rd parties read it, that is. Afterall it seems we have to convince them about what should be obvious to them too!
  9. I'm not sure you're making fun or being serious? It's not about "fantastic brandishing". It's about having common sense, about efficiency and making the most out of the resources - that is "industry standards"! Something that most professional game developers, be it as studio or individual, always follow. Or at least everyone did back in my time in the field. If this is not something you ever heard about, be it the term or the motives/reasons, then I'm afraid to say it but I can't help you... In regards to the DCS "overkill" textures (which they are), if we
  10. You said previously in this thread, the fellas you contacted at ED and 3rd parties devs about this subject responded that the textures are like they are, and quoting: "This is not something I have to convince someone. This is that obvious." And you said yourself: "is unfortunately not true in this case, apparently you do have to convince Eagle Dynamics." This is a bit surprising, if I'm honest, and I read that as bad news. I really thought they would imediately understand the issue of having such big overkill textures like we have right now, which do cause more s
  11. Oh, if only... unfortunately it won't be like that. But we're going off topic and maybe better recommend thread opened here about that subject:
  12. That's why I would always recommend to get the best, fastest "near overkill" CPU you can get for the longer term, instead of budgeting for the mid-range "it's good enough" CPU. The former will, nearly guaranteed, allow for any GPU upgrade later with no issues whatsoever, while the latter may eventually cause some bottlenecking. For example, those that run an i7 8700K since 2017 are unlikely to feel their CPU is lacking maybe even today, even with an RTX3080. Those that run a Ryzen 1600 also since 2017 have surely felt the need to upgrade long ago, and it would certainly
  13. I think people underestimate the long term strenght of CPUs, especially high end ones, even if older. Overclocking also goes a long way, depending on CPU of course. Sometimes framerate becomes a mere number on the screen, and not a measure of how you really feel the game is running. It only makes sense to upgrade CPU if 1) it's either too weak, or 2) it bottlenecks your GPU. In the first case it's obvious... it's not good enough so needs upgrading. In the second case, and if it's a good CPU, it generally only happens with every two or three generations of (high end)
  14. While not really a "fixed date" as it depends on circumstances, I'd say that I usually upgrade CPU+Motherboard (and maybe RAM, depending on its gen adoption) every 4 years or so, and with a GPU upgrade at mid-life of each system, usually every 2 years on average.
×
×
  • Create New...