Jump to content

Current Mig-29 in game flight model


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

You still have to get permission for Mikoyan-Gurevich (who is the original IP holder), who has to get permission from the Russian government (who has a vested interest in national security and doesn't care about video games).

 

 

It doesn't matter if it's splashing the Star Trek logo across your game, or copying in exacting detail a MiG fighter, you still have to get permission from IP holders and their overlords (in this case a government entity). Failure to do so results in lawsuits. In ED's case, since they are BASED in the entity that would be pissed off at them, it's more like "get permission or go to very cold place for very long time."

 

 

-edit

 

 

For example, have you ever heard about people making "licensed" versions of different aircraft? Like Chinese copies of tanks, aircraft, etc that are licensed? Have you seen the negative fallout when they make UNlicensed copies of tanks/aircraft? Yeah, those are countries. If you are just a lowly video game developer, and LIVE in the entity whose toes you have stepped on, things are unlikely to turn out in your favor.

 

 

It's video games to us. It's war and national secrets to them. And just because they sold rights to Iraq (to pull an example out of my butt) has absolutely ZERO bearing on anything else. They sold those rights to Iraq, not Eagle Dynamics. Iraq can build a simulator, or even a fighter if it wants. Eagle Dynamics cannot.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still have to get permission for Mikoyan-Gurevich (who is the original IP holder), who has to get permission from the Russian government (who has a vested interest in national security and doesn't care about video games).

 

 

It doesn't matter if it's splashing the Star Trek logo across your game, or copying in exacting detail a MiG fighter, you still have to get permission from IP holders and their overlords (in this case a government entity). Failure to do so results in lawsuits. In ED's case, since they are BASED in the entity that would be pissed off at them, it's more like "get permission or go to very cold place for very long time."

-edit

For example, have you ever heard about people making "licensed" versions of different aircraft? Like Chinese copies of tanks, aircraft, etc that are licensed? Have you seen the negative fallout when they make UNlicensed copies of tanks/aircraft? Yeah, those are countries. If you are just a lowly video game developer, and LIVE in the entity whose toes you have stepped on, things are unlikely to turn out in your favor.

 

 

It's video games to us. It's war and national secrets to them. And just because they sold rights to Iraq (to pull an example out of my butt) has absolutely ZERO bearing on anything else. They sold those rights to Iraq, not Eagle Dynamics. Iraq can build a simulator, or even a fighter if it wants. Eagle Dynamics cannot.

 

But older MiG variants like the 19, 21, and 23 are fine, then? The 21, and yes even the bis version, is still very much used by modern countries. What is the rationale, there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But older MiG variants like the 19, 21, and 23 are fine, then? The 21, and yes even the bis version, is still very much used by modern countries. What is the rationale, there?

 

Of all the planes you mentioned there, Eagle Dynamics only developed the Mig-15. The Mig-21 was developed by Leatherneck at a time when the current licence owners and the Russian government were much more open about these sorts of things. You also have to take into account that the Mig21 bis was developed based on the real world knowlege (and documentation) from one of their developers who was/is an active duty pilot in Serbia. One of the few countries today that still operate the plane. Russia no longer does.

 

Its pointless to talk about airframes which are still in development, since they might never see the light of day.

 

Zhukov is correct on all accounts here, and this was all confirmed at least unofficially by ED. Unfortunately we will not see any modern active duty RED airframes in the future any time soon. This has nothing to do with how profitable or popular these modules are compared to their western counterparts, but more with laws and regulations in the country of origin of these fighter designs.

 

Even if permission is granted, ED still has to get relevant documentation to get to a level of simulation which they would be happy with, and this too could also be extremely problematic from a security point of view, as holding onto some of these documents could be considered illegal.


Edited by OnlyforDCS

Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to point out, there are workarounds. For example, there is a reason that we have M2000C and not Mirage 2000C in DCS. Razbam could not get full cooperation from Dassault.

 

Kamov helped ED with the Ka-50, a quite advanced helicopter with datalink. However, dealing with russian IP's and companies might be more difficult than dealing with for example Textron or Boeing.

 

Chizh has stated on the russian forums that a Su-27 (or was it MiG29) is likely going to get made. But not now.

 

I would not be suprised if a 3rd party like Deka Ironworks would make chinese versions of russian aircrafts. It is a growing playerbase + IP laws are a lot looser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its pointless to talk about airframes which are still in development, since they might never see the light of day.

There's no proof of that. These modules are going to see the light of day, and in fact the 19P is close to completion. All of the other modules developed/announced by Razbam have also been released so far. The 21bis isn't going to magically disappear off of ED's store anytime soon, either. Despite the fact that it is technically still in Early Access.

 

What you're saying is that yes; you can indeed bypass them if you develop an airframe that they don't care about. Which is why the 23MLA is fine, despite the fact that variant is a widely popular export variant and the MLD is a reserve aircraft for the Russian air force. Or the 21bis, despite the fact that many former Warsaw pact countries still use it such as Cuba and yes, Serbia.

 

My point to all this is that I think Schmidtfire is more correct on this issue than Zhukov. The doom and gloom over Redfor aircraft is speculation based on Russian laws, and it's true that they don't want their active service planes models. At the same time, other developers have found workarounds, and have readily made aircraft without cooperation from their parent company or home country. Which is why export/copy aircraft might be the future of Redfor when developers finally getting around to making them.

 

Basically: I don't think it's correct to use what happened to the SU-27 as a measure of policy toward Redfor aircraft. That seems to be more the exception than the rule.


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But older MiG variants like the 19, 21, and 23 are fine, then? The 21, and yes even the bis version, is still very much used by modern countries. What is the rationale, there?

 

It isn't that it's impossible, or any other hard wall. What's the difference between the MiG-21/23 and and a MiG-29? The IP holders and government said yes, obviously. They're also easier to get physical access to, and easier to find pilots who flew them that can talk about the systems without fear of getting in trouble. And as Schmidt mentioned, sometimes there are compromises possible, as with the Mirage.

 

I don't see what's the issue. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or seems reasonable. These are government entities and government contractors, and they operate the way they choose to operate.

 

Look, none of us are involved in this procurement process. We cannot give you a detailed breakdown of why the government would say yes or no. It is unlikely ED ever receives detailed breakdowns, I expect they ask and get a yes/no. This is a video game, and at the end of the day these large entities do not care whether we think it would be cool to fly an imaginary version of their plane. They are very large players on the world scene and they do not give a rat's ass about us and our hobby. It's that simple.

 

Sometimes they say yes, sometimes they say no. They don't NEED a reason. The older something is, the more open they are to letting us use it. If something is active duty, it's a point against it, unless it's obsolete (the aircraft you listed are all obsolete) in which they might still be ok with it. It also depends on the specifics of the aircraft, tech that might be in it that they don't want publicised, etc. Some entities are more open than others.

 

Stop thinking in video game terms and look at the wider world around you and how you fit into it. It's not understand.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't that it's impossible, or any other hard wall. What's the difference between the MiG-21/23 and and a MiG-29? The IP holders and government said yes, obviously. They're also easier to get physical access to, and easier to find pilots who flew them that can talk about the systems without fear of getting in trouble. And as Schmidt mentioned, sometimes there are compromises possible, as with the Mirage.

 

I don't see what's the issue. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or seems reasonable. These are government entities and government contractors, and they operate the way they choose to operate.

 

Look, none of us are involved in this procurement process. We cannot give you a detailed breakdown of why the government would say yes or no. It is unlikely ED ever receives detailed breakdowns, I expect they ask and get a yes/no. This is a video game, and at the end of the day these large entities do not care whether we think it would be cool to fly an imaginary version of their plane. They are very large players on the world scene and they do not give a rat's ass about us and our hobby. It's that simple.

 

Sometimes they say yes, sometimes they say no. They don't NEED a reason. The older something is, the more open they are to letting us use it. If something is active duty, it's a point against it, unless it's obsolete (the aircraft you listed are all obsolete) in which they might still be ok with it. It also depends on the specifics of the aircraft, tech that might be in it that they don't want publicised, etc. Some entities are more open than others.

 

Stop thinking in video game terms and look at the wider world around you and how you fit into it. It's not understand.

 

You're acting as if it's literally impossible to find second-hand accounts for these planes or that they're top-secret despite being export products. I actually don't know if you're being serious or not.

 

You're repeating the same thing again and again and not even addressing that we have contradicting evidence that it's entirely possible to create modules without consent from the original manufacturer. For example: the Fulcrum is a 40 year old plane, and has had hundreds upon hundreds of people fly them. It's an airframe that is as old as the Mirage 2000.

 

Why do you keep repeating again and again that these are government contractors and that there's no way they would let them model something for a video game when we have the M2000C in the video game? when we have MiGs in the video game? Are you hoping that I just give up and ignore that? You keep hammering on and on about "Stop thinking in video game terms" but completely ignore evidence that contradicts your argument. The whole point of what I was arguing for is that we could easily get export or copycat products in the future. Or, who knows, a third party dev could get UAC's blessing on modeling an older aircraft. It's entirely baseless speculation and you admit that it is. So why do you keep 'thinking in video game terms'?

 

I think claiming that all of Redfor is off-limits while we're getting new redfor modules is kind of silly. Don't you think?


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No... that isn't what I said.

Let me simplify it some more.

 

Just because they said yes to one, does not mean they say yes to another.

 

They did not receive FULL support from Dassault. They still required permission. The M2000 vs Mirage 2000 thing was a compromise they worked out with Dassault, who as the IP holder still has authority to say NO.

 

I did not say there is no way. I said it is harder to get permission for newer more advanced. Case and point, ED just a couple weeks ago stated directly that they were forbidden to make an Su-24, so it is not coming. Period.

 

You can get information, yes. You still need PERMISSION. What's so hard to understand about that? See the recent controversy with the Swedish RB-15, when documents ended up getting posted on DCS forums without authorisation.

 

Nobody said RedFor is offlimits. We have numerous RedFor aircraft with more in the works. People are saying 4th gen+ RedFor are harder to get because the respective governments are less forthcoming. Russia/China is not the USA/UK/France. Just because one gives permission to do something means nothing. International relations also vary from one time to the next. Right now, you can expect minimal cooperation between Russian/Western entities, due to sanctions and bad blood.

 

But whatever. I don't even know what your issue is anymore. You asked, people answered. It's not hearsay, it's what ED said. There are political issues, and also profitability issues. It's not impossible, but it's difficult and less likely. If you know better than everybody else, then what are you doing here asking about it? Why don't you go buy that full fidelity MiG-29 that HASN'T BEEN MADE. Wonder why....maybe because of all the reasons people have tried to explain to you.

 

Being a copy or export version doesn't change the fact those people needed a license too, they were given by the original IP holders. You cannot end run the original owners without encountering legal issues. Period. To continue the Star Trek analogy. They sold the rights to Mattel to make Star Trek action figures. They did not sell them to you. Mattel can make action figures, you cannot. You can't copy them then say 'oh, it's not a Star Trek figure, it's a copy of a Mattel toy that was originally based on Star Trek.' It doesn't work that way.

 

It doesn't matter if tech docs can be found online or wherever. You're talking about using detailed specifications and what were or in some cases still are government documents to produce a simulation of warplanes and weapon systems. The rules and factors in play are different. It doesn't matter if you like it.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No... that isn't what I said.

Let me simplify it some more.

 

Just because they said yes to one, does not mean they say yes to another.

 

They did not receive FULL support from Dassault. They still required permission. The M2000 vs Mirage 2000 thing was a compromise they worked out with Dassault, who as the IP holder still has authority to say NO.

 

I did not say there is no way. I said it is harder to get permission for newer more advanced. Case and point, ED just a couple weeks ago stated directly that they were forbidden to make an Su-24, so it is not coming. Period.

 

You can get information, yes. You still need PERMISSION. What's so hard to understand about that? See the recent controversy with the Swedish RB-15, when documents ended up getting posted on DCS forums without authorisation.

 

Nobody said RedFor is offlimits. We have numerous RedFor aircraft with more in the works. People are saying 4th gen+ RedFor are harder to get because the respective governments are less forthcoming. Russia/China is not the USA/UK/France. Just because one gives permission to do something means nothing. International relations also vary from one time to the next. Right now, you can expect minimal cooperation between Russian/Western entities, due to sanctions and bad blood.

 

But whatever. I don't even know what your issue is anymore. You asked, people answered. It's not hearsay, it's what ED said. There are political issues, and also profitability issues. It's not impossible, but it's difficult and less likely. If you know better than everybody else, then what are you doing here asking about it? Why don't you go buy that full fidelity MiG-29 that HASN'T BEEN MADE. Wonder why....maybe because of all the reasons people have tried to explain to you.

 

Being a copy or export version doesn't change the fact those people needed a license too, they were given by the original IP holders. You cannot end run the original owners without encountering legal issues. Period. To continue the Star Trek analogy. They sold the rights to Mattel to make Star Trek action figures. They did not sell them to you. Mattel can make action figures, you cannot. You can't copy them then say 'oh, it's not a Star Trek figure, it's a copy of a Mattel toy that was originally based on Star Trek.' It doesn't work that way.

 

It doesn't matter if tech docs can be found online or wherever. You're talking about using detailed specifications and what were or in some cases still are government documents to produce a simulation of warplanes and weapon systems. The rules and factors in play are different. It doesn't matter if you like it.

 

But just because they say 'no' to one, means they will say 'no' to another. This works both ways.

I don't see how you don't get this.

Also no one has made or put interest in the prospects of new redfor modules because we've been told that there is a belief that there exists very little interest in investing in one due to the popularity of NATO planes. No one has made a real break-out redfor module yet aside from the MiG-21, which is why your argument about it seems a little silly. We won't really know how popular one would be until the JF-17 hits, and maybe not even until the Mig-23 hits.

 

So stating that you can't buy one right now because of license issues when no one has taken the time to try to license or attempt one because of the lack of interest is a chicken and egg argument you're making. You're not saying it can't be done, just that it hasn't been done yet.

 

Which is why I think Schmidtfire is completely correct when he says " I would not be suprised if a 3rd party like Deka Ironworks would make chinese versions of russian aircrafts. It is a growing playerbase + IP laws are a lot looser.". Avoiding the question altogether seems like the future for redfor in this game.

 

EDIT: Also I would like to point out that we're getting waaaay off course of the original topic of the OP. which is the Mig-29 PFM. The Mig-29 PFM is something that is absolutely happening in the near future, and may be the best representation of the Fulcrum that we ever get if no one steps up and finds a workaround for including it.


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: Also I would like to point out that we're getting waaaay off course of the original topic of the OP. which is the Mig-29 PFM. The Mig-29 PFM is something that is absolutely happening in the near future, and may be the best representation of the Fulcrum that we ever get if no one steps up and finds a workaround for including it.

 

I'm hoping for that very thing, it's what attracted me back to the DCS universe.

"These are NOT 1 to 1 replicas of the real aircraft, there are countless compromises made on each of them" - Senior ED Member

 

Modules - Damn near all of them (no Christian Eagle or Yak)

System - i7-12700K, 64Gig DDR4 3200 RAM, RTX-3080, 3 32" monitors at 5760 x 1080, default settings of High (minor tweaks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PFM is very close I think. Took her up for a spin yesterday, and it feels different. Same way as when Su33 was about to get PFM. Not fully implemented yet, but seems different from the regular SFM.

That's promising to hear! I haven't tried it recently, so I'm really looking forward to testing out any FM changes when I get home.

 

I was hoping that we would have PFM before MAC comes out.

 

EDIT: I just tested the 29A and I think you're right; it does fly differently than previously. In particular the 'Sticking' effect of the SFM planes when they're on the ground appears to be absent.


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PFM is very close I think. Took her up for a spin yesterday, and it feels different. Same way as when Su33 was about to get PFM. Not fully implemented yet, but seems different from the regular SFM.

 

That's promising to hear! I haven't tried it recently, so I'm really looking forward to testing out any FM changes when I get home.

 

I was hoping that we would have PFM before MAC comes out.

 

EDIT: I just tested the 29A and I think you're right; it does fly differently than previously. In particular the 'Sticking' effect of the SFM planes when they're on the ground appears to be absent.

 

I'm still using DCS version 1.5.7, are you saying that updating to DCS version 2.5.2 or whichever it is now, the MiG-29 Flight Model is actually different ?

 

thank you.

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still using DCS version 1.5.7, are you saying that updating to DCS version 2.5.2 or whichever it is now, the MiG-29 Flight Model is actually different ?

 

thank you.

 

So I just did a few tests in 1.5.8 and in 2.5.3.2. While the A and the G models have noticeable flight model differences between the two; the Mig-29S absolutely seems to fly exactly the same way in both versions. In particular, The A and the G seem to experience forces such as ground effect and additional pitching and yawing forces that the S does not experience in 2.5.3. It's very noticeable when taxiing or on takeoff/landing. It's definitely still a simple flight model, but seems more akin to the flanker's previous SFM performance.

Could someone help verify this, as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IRL there are differences in flight control system etc. between MiG-29A and MiG-29S, so hopefully that means that ED makes some adjustments between the different versions, starting with the A/G models.

 

But yes, your test verifies that they have started tinkering with the FM. They recently updated some of the sounds aswell as some artwork. We are getting close :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I just did a few tests in 1.5.8 and in 2.5.3.2. While the A and the G models have noticeable flight model differences between the two; the Mig-29S absolutely seems to fly exactly the same way in both versions. In particular, The A and the G seem to experience forces such as ground effect and additional pitching and yawing forces that the S does not experience in 2.5.3. It's very noticeable when taxiing or on takeoff/landing. It's definitely still a simple flight model, but seems more akin to the flanker's previous SFM performance.

Could someone help verify this, as well?

 

IRL there are differences in flight control system etc. between MiG-29A and MiG-29S, so hopefully that means that ED makes some adjustments between the different versions, starting with the A/G models.

 

But yes, your test verifies that they have started tinkering with the FM. They recently updated some of the sounds aswell as some artwork. We are getting close :)

 

Thank you.

 

So by that, is it correct to say that the MiG-29 A/G do now have slightly better Instantaneous Turn Rate ?

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still using DCS version 1.5.7, are you saying that updating to DCS version 2.5.2 or whichever it is now, the MiG-29 Flight Model is actually different ?

 

thank you.

 

Well, to see for myself if the Fulcrum turning capabilities were improved I installed version 2.5.2 yesterday...

 

Now I don't even know where to start... all hell broke loose.

 

- first it were the 8 hours (or more) to download the 2.5.2 version;

- then some minutes to decompress the files;

- then some more minutes to install them;

 

- had to insert some different password to log in DCS, (which wasn't asked in 1.5.7 version) so I could start the game;

- otherwise, FC3 aircraft and my MiG-21 module would not be accessible;

 

- then the game itself preset the graphics settings according to my PC specs... well it wasn't enough to have a viable gameplay - it was freezing very constantly;

- if I insisted in playing it would freeze my whole PC (CTRL + ALT + DEL without any effect) and right to BSOD; crash dump report; etc.

 

- changed myself the graphic settings to a very minimum (almost everything to LOW or OFF), and unfortunately the same keeps happening;

- meanwhile, between the freezes, I got the impression that the Fulcrum isn't turning that much better / in a perceptible way than the 1.5.7 version...

 

My question is: if FC3 is like this nowadays, when Heatblur F-14 comes out, how I'm I going to be able to play it ?

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your computer has actually near under the "line" of low settings.

Minimum system requirements (LOW graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 7/8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Intel Core i3 at 2.8 GHz or AMD FX; RAM: 8 GB (16 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 60 GB; Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 / AMD R9 280X or better; requires internet activation.

 

Recommended system requirements (HIGH graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; 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); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 56 with 8GB VRAM or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

 

Recommended VR systems requirements (VR graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; 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); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 64 or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

 

The Mig-29 was tuned in the past and the version 2.5.2 has very different with the 1.5.7. Other point has the Mig-29 FC-3 segregate module coming and expected changes as the PFM.

 

The F-14 module has nothing to do with FC-3, has check the module manager to install the FC-3 and Mig-21?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to see for myself if the Fulcrum turning capabilities were improved I installed version 2.5.2 yesterday...

 

Now I don't even know where to start... all hell broke loose.

 

- first it were the 8 hours (or more) to download the 2.5.2 version;

- then some minutes to decompress the files;

- then some more minutes to install them;

 

- had to insert some different password to log in DCS, (which wasn't asked in 1.5.7 version) so I could start the game;

- otherwise, FC3 aircraft and my MiG-21 module would not be accessible;

 

- then the game itself preset the graphics settings according to my PC specs... well it wasn't enough to have a viable gameplay - it was freezing very constantly;

- if I insisted in playing it would freeze my whole PC (CTRL + ALT + DEL without any effect) and right to BSOD; crash dump report; etc.

 

- changed myself the graphic settings to a very minimum (almost everything to LOW or OFF), and unfortunately the same keeps happening;

- meanwhile, between the freezes, I got the impression that the Fulcrum isn't turning that much better / in a perceptible way than the 1.5.7 version...

 

My question is: if FC3 is like this nowadays, when Heatblur F-14 comes out, how I'm I going to be able to play it ?

 

You probably won't without a system upgrade. 2.5 is not 1.5. The system requirements have increased. You definitely need at least a 4gb GPU, preferably 1060+, and a SSD. RAM is ok, more doesn't hurt though. A more modern CPU would be a good idea, too, but the 4790 should be ok since my dad is using a FX8300 successfully.

 

Consider 2.5 a completely new game, vs 1.5 which is quite old. Because you could run 1.5 has no bearing on 2.5.

 

That said, it sounds like you're having other issues that are causing the crashes. You're just going to have to hammer out what's happening.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your computer has actually near under the "line" of low settings.

 

 

The Mig-29 was tuned in the past and the version 2.5.2 has very different with the 1.5.7. Other point has the Mig-29 FC-3 segregate module coming and expected changes as the PFM.

 

The F-14 module has nothing to do with FC-3, has check the module manager to install the FC-3 and Mig-21?

 

Yes I experienced my computer lack of capable hardware to "digest" the DCS 2.5.2 version.

 

The point is, this GPU costed me roughly 350 € a few years ago.

 

And a "good" GPU with 4 GB memory will certainly go to 500 € or more... which is a lot of money here in Portugal.

( The minimum wage here is 580 € / month. )

 

Yes, i checked the module manager and even re-activated the licences again.

However still had to re-start the game and insert a password to do the "DCS login".

 

From the few times I've managed to test the Fulcrum today (before giving up), it didn't look so much different in turning, and still bleeds speed as fast as before when turning...

 

You probably won't without a system upgrade. 2.5 is not 1.5. The system requirements have increased. You definitely need at least a 4gb GPU, preferably 1060+, and a SSD. RAM is ok, more doesn't hurt though. A more modern CPU would be a good idea, too, but the 4790 should be ok since my dad is using a FX8300 successfully.

 

Consider 2.5 a completely new game, vs 1.5 which is quite old. Because you could run 1.5 has no bearing on 2.5.

 

That said, it sounds like you're having other issues that are causing the crashes. You're just going to have to hammer out what's happening.

 

The CPU is an i7 4790K, precisely the strongest component of my PC... it wouldn't be very good for Eagle Dynamics / DCS if a CPU of this price tag couldn't handle it.

 

Because typically, people don't like to pay fortunes to be able to play a simulator.

 

You've nailed it already; what's happening is I need a new GPU and SSD to support the 2.5.2 version.

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a CPU four generations or so removed. Not yet wholey obsolescent, but 'price tag' is utterly irrelevant. Every piece of hardware becomes obselete eventually, an unavoidable fact. 2.5 is a different graphic engine and a different rendering method, it is newer and more demanding. 'What people like' is also not important, if they want to stay on the leading edge of new games and tech, they have to upgrade more frequently. Another unavoidable fact. DCS is intensive, particularly on CPUs, but the large map size makes it RAM and drive R/W intensive, too.

 

That said, I agree your hardware should be functional, even if at lower settings. The 2gb VRAM gpu is probably the breaker. For reference, my dad just upgraded from 8-32gb of RAM and from a harddrive to SSD and it made a huuuuuge difference. He has a 1060 6gb and a heavily overclocked FX8300 and is running 1440 at 80-100fps

 

Get a 1060 6gb and you should be good, preferably paired with the SSD

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a CPU four generations or so removed. Not yet wholey obsolescent, but 'price tag' is utterly irrelevant. Every piece of hardware becomes obselete eventually, an unavoidable fact. 2.5 is a different graphic engine and a different rendering method, it is newer and more demanding. 'What people like' is also not important, if they want to stay on the leading edge of new games and tech, they have to upgrade more frequently. Another unavoidable fact. DCS is intensive, particularly on CPUs, but the large map size makes it RAM and drive R/W intensive, too.

 

That said, I agree your hardware should be functional, even if at lower settings. The 2gb VRAM gpu is probably the breaker. For reference, my dad just upgraded from 8-32gb of RAM and from a harddrive to SSD and it made a huuuuuge difference. He has a 1060 6gb and a heavily overclocked FX8300 and is running 1440 at 80-100fps

 

Get a 1060 6gb and you should be good, preferably paired with the SSD

 

I couldn't agree more, except with the proposition in bold.

Because, at the end of the day, we are talking about money here.

 

I really do appreciate new and better graphics, features, realism, etc.

 

But if game developers make software in a way that gamers are forced to spend obscene amounts of money in hardware just to keep going, the tendency is to people stop buying their games - because everybody has their limit to spend money.

 

By the way, would Heatblur F-14 work with DCS World 1.5.x.x version, or one is obligated to have version 2.5 ?

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 4790k loves 2.5 but there's a little more ram and a 1070 backing it up.

 

Tomcat will require 2.5

 

Yep I see, and totally understand it.

 

Man... I was mentally making time estimates to the Tomcat release, and now I realise I must first spend more money in hardware.

 

Well, thank you for the info!

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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