Richard Dastardly Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 Would think Vulkan will also bring much improvement in shaders, so hopefully better looking foliage etc. That might need a large rework of all art assets, mind you. Most Wanted: the angry Naval Lynx | Seafire | Buccaneer | Hawker Hunter | Hawker Tempest/Sea Fury | Su-17/22 | rough strip rearming / construction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StandingCow Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Vulkan is for GPU ... not for cpu Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Not true. The Vulcan API uses multi-core much better than other APIs, it also results in less calls to the CPU. From wikipedia: "Compared to OpenGL and Direct3D 11, and like Direct3D 12 and Metal, Vulkan is intended to offer higher performance and more balanced CPU/GPU usage. Other major differences from Direct3D 11 (and prior) and OpenGL are Vulkan being a considerably lower-level API and offering parallel tasking. Vulkan also has the ability to render 2D graphics applications.[11] In addition to its lower CPU usage, Vulkan is also able to better distribute work among multiple CPU cores.[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulkan_(API) 5900X - 32 GB 3600 RAM - 1080TI My Twitch Channel ~Moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1Combat Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) however flight sims are tightly time dependent (think FM etc) so there are real limits on re-integrating processes from different procs. You could however probably offload stuff like AI The FM isn't really CPU latency dependent at all. The AI, and specifically how hits are calculated from one unit to another and that sort of stuff... is. Basically... some things in the simulation interact with other things in the simulation. Anything that is a child process of a parent so to speak (like the FM of an aircraft) isn't really latency dependent as far as how it relates to it's parent. Only how it relates to interacting with other entities. but FM's don't interact with anything other than their parent object. bullets do. And they're fired from wither other player entities or AI entities. Edited January 7, 2020 by M1Combat Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600 Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Nelson Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 I have a theory which could be utter rubbish but I'm wondering if this new map is being built with a view to allowing better frame rates when the Supercarrier gets released. I'm also speculating that they may be trying some new elements of the new engine. Fully expecting to be debunked, just putting it out there anyway. i7700k OC to 4.8GHz with Noctua NH-U14S (fan) with AORUS RTX2080ti 11GB Waterforce. 32GDDR, Warthog HOTAS and Saitek rudders. HP Reverb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunterlund21 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 (edited) Is Vulcan another rewrite of the system? As a novice this sounds like we wont see this until perhaps 2021. Look how long 2.x took to come out. Am I wrong on this? Ah this system can run cross platform ie Linux. Edited January 8, 2020 by gunterlund21 I was in Art of the Kill D#@ it!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphamale Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 (edited) i hopelessly hope they somewhat announce Apache in the near future Not just the Apache. It has to be the AH-64D Longbow or none at all...don't want the watered-down version Edited January 8, 2020 by Alphamale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haukka81 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Apache , A model please. Orginal cold war ;) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Oculus CV1, Odyssey, Pimax 5k+ (i5 8400, 24gb ddr4 3000mhz, 1080Ti OC ) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagpipe Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Is Vulcan another rewrite of the system? As a novice this sounds like we wont see this until perhaps 2021. Look how long 2.x took to come out. Am I wrong on this? Ah this system can run cross platform ie Linux. Not a re-write, mostly straight forward porting it to new API from what i have seen wuth other sims but alot of bug squashing required before it will hit stable version i reckon. I think it is safe to assume that this year the OB release will have alot more Beta content being tested out. Personally, i am more than fine with that. The prospect of smoothed out jaggies and silky shadows running at 60+ FPS is just too much to deny ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustBelt Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Not a re-write, mostly straight forward porting it to new API That's never as straight forward as anyone thinks it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faelwolf Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 That's never as straight forward as anyone thinks it will be. Nothing ever is :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignition Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 So many things needs to be done... Years pass and we still have a very primitive AI (air and ground), mission editor, 20yr old assets, very little ammount of ships, a bad dynamic weather, a broken FLIR and no ground radar, no ATC. I love DCS but when I stop and think about it, I get very sad. Even ARMA 3 feels better in most of these aspects. DCS needs more "game" features and less early access aircrafts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimp Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 So many things needs to be done... Years pass and we still have a very primitive AI (air and ground), mission editor, 20yr old assets, very little ammount of ships, a bad dynamic weather, a broken FLIR and no ground radar, no ATC. I love DCS but when I stop and think about it, I get very sad. Even ARMA 3 feels better in most of these aspects. DCS needs more "game" features and less early access aircrafts. Already been discussed and ED is well aware of the lack of core features. Hopefully this week's newsletter speaks on this. i9 9900k @5.1GHz NZXT Kraken |Asus ROG Strix Z390 E-Gaming | Samsung NVMe m.2 970 Evo 1TB | LPX 64GB DDR4 3200MHz EVGA RTX 3090 FTW3 Ultra | Reverb G1 | HOTAS Warthog | Saitek Flight Pedals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil106ci Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 introducing a new graphics engine including vulkan api should be kind of a gamechanger , I can't wait and really hope we will have it soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThorBrasil Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 So many things needs to be done... Years pass and we still have a very primitive AI (air and ground), mission editor, 20yr old assets, very little ammount of ships, a bad dynamic weather, a broken FLIR and no ground radar, no ATC. I love DCS but when I stop and think about it, I get very sad. Even ARMA 3 feels better in most of these aspects. DCS needs more "game" features and less early access aircrafts. I don't even get excited about buying fighter jets anymore. There are already enough planes to do many things. DCS lacks resources. A transport plane is missing. I hope that will change in the future. :bye_2: |Motherboard|: Asus TUF Gaming X570-PLUS, |WaterCooler|: Corsair H115i Pro, |CPU|: AMD Ryzen 7 3800X, |RAM|: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3200MHz DDR4, |SSD|: Kingston A2000 500GB M.2 NVMe, |SSD|: Kingston 2.5´ 480GB UV400 SATA III, |SSHD|: Seagate Híbrido 2TB 7200RPM SATA III, |GPU|: MSI Gaming 980Ti, |Monitor|: LG UltraWide 34UM68, |Joystick 1|: Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog, |Joystick 2|: T.Flight Rudder Pedals, |Head Motion|: TrackIr 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmidtfire Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 I agree. Big transport or bomber aircraft would be amazing, even with FC3 modeling. But the Mi-24P and MiG-23MLA are interesting modules on the horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snappy Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 (edited) Already been discussed and ED is well aware of the lack of core features. Hopefully this week's newsletter speaks on this. ED was aware of this for years..its not like these are sudden, newly discovered deficiencies. Still these issues languished. Also very interested in the next newsletter. But then again announcing things has always been a strength of ED, I would appreciate instead tangible progress in A.I. amongst other core issues instead of nice-sounding newsletters Sorry for sounding somewhat negative, but based on past experience I‘m not getting my hopes up. Before anyone says the usual : „ some ppl will complain no matter what, unappreciative,negative nancy, bla bla...“ No, its just different ppl have different tastes/preferences and while its cool that we get a new map free of charge, I‘d rather have much improved A.I. and skip the map. Regards, Snappy Edited January 9, 2020 by Snappy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAngel1 Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 If I need to be honest, I will say that I dont need new modules (except carrier module). I just want ED to finish EA modules ASAP. Especially the Hornet! :) ..:NAVY PILOTS ARE THE THE BEST PILOTS:.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazz_44 Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 At the end of the day, ED is a business, and if we want to see any improvements, they need to have resources (money) to do so. I'm 1000% sure that they are aware of everything you have suggested and then some. They will improve core game features, but it has to be supported by putting out modules to keep the cash coming. Just be patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faelwolf Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 At the end of the day, ED is a business, and if we want to see any improvements, they need to have resources (money) to do so. I'm 1000% sure that they are aware of everything you have suggested and then some. They will improve core game features, but it has to be supported by putting out modules to keep the cash coming. Just be patient. It's a bit of a catch-22. To fix the issues requires manpower and money, but the problems reduce sales, which limits the manpower and money available to make the fixes. The most practical solution would be an outside investor, but that is unlikely in such a niche market, so the cycle continues. The addition of 3rd party module developers helps a little by giving them additional manpower at lower cost to them, but it isn't going to be enough to break the cycle, and has created it's own problems. The situation is complicated even further by the continual evolution of computer technology and the resulting higher performance and feature expectations of their customers. ED is a small company in a very limited market, and IIRC the PC market was, at least initially, a side venture for them to begin with. I admit to being frustrated at times, but compared to what flight sims used to be, we have come a long way. If something like DCS had been shown to us back in the 90's we would have been stunned. I feel the biggest problem ED has is in communication. They often over-promise, but I think they honestly believe they are going to reach the goals they publicly set for themselves at the time they make the statements, but lack the transparency needed when they fall behind schedule. They have yet to learn that it's better to under-promise and over-deliver, especially in this age of social media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Fei Mao Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) It's a bit of a catch-22. To fix the issues requires manpower and money, but the problems reduce sales, which limits the manpower and money available to make the fixes. The most practical solution would be an outside investor, but that is unlikely in such a niche market, so the cycle continues...... -----You'r right.After all ED is not a big company, with limited manpower. So I constantly bouht some modules to support them, though some I might never touch seriously。 Edited January 11, 2020 by Lao Fei Mao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlikwin Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 ED was aware of this for years..its not like these are sudden, newly discovered deficiencies. Still these issues languished. Also very interested in the next newsletter. But then again announcing things has always been a strength of ED, I would appreciate instead tangible progress in A.I. amongst other core issues instead of nice-sounding newsletters Sorry for sounding somewhat negative, but based on past experience I‘m not getting my hopes up. Before anyone says the usual : „ some ppl will complain no matter what, unappreciative,negative nancy, bla bla...“ No, its just different ppl have different tastes/preferences and while its cool that we get a new map free of charge, I‘d rather have much improved A.I. and skip the map. Regards, Snappy Let me start by saying I agree. But you also have to realize the art guys arent writing code. Or at least you "really really" dont want them too. Otherwise the AI is gonna be like andy warhol on crack. I can post that gif for you but you probably can paint that picture in your head. The better argument might be map vs improved visual AC models or ships etc. Code wise similar issue, you probably dont want the FM guy doint AI or vice versa. But they are probably light on coders. Much like ol razbam. New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1) Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLEGION Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 (edited) well… i agree with the majority of posts here. in fact i'm waaay more negative than most of people here, because to me its clear that the commercial logic has taken over ...so… working on already sold modules (read: F-18 ) will just not bring more money. i'm still deeply disappointed but not surprised by years-old bugs not being addressed. that said, i would happily pay another full price (50-60€) for a finished F18 module. if the work is made and is quality work, i would pay >>>happily<<<, supporting ED again. to my eyes that can be a satisfactory solution for everyone,ED get more cash (for a quality work, so its fine), customers finally get what they pay for, many years ago. actual politic seem to just make a lot of unhappy people, and the "more modules" logic will just make all worse, there's no escape from Early Access. so, again, i suggest ED to rethink theyr politic, i'm sure many Others will be happy to pay for a good quality work to complete a module, instead to dump cash into incomplete modules that will struggle for years, or worse do like me and never buy a DCS product of any kind until my favourite module will be 100% complete and bug-free. hope they will think on that, even if probably they will not even read this. Edited January 12, 2020 by DLEGION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted January 14, 2020 ED Team Share Posted January 14, 2020 well… i agree with the majority of posts here. in fact i'm waaay more negative than most of people here, because to me its clear that the commercial logic has taken over ...so… working on already sold modules (read: F-18 ) will just not bring more money. i'm still deeply disappointed but not surprised by years-old bugs not being addressed. that said, i would happily pay another full price (50-60€) for a finished F18 module. if the work is made and is quality work, i would pay >>>happily<<<, supporting ED again. to my eyes that can be a satisfactory solution for everyone,ED get more cash (for a quality work, so its fine), customers finally get what they pay for, many years ago. actual politic seem to just make a lot of unhappy people, and the "more modules" logic will just make all worse, there's no escape from Early Access. so, again, i suggest ED to rethink theyr politic, i'm sure many Others will be happy to pay for a good quality work to complete a module, instead to dump cash into incomplete modules that will struggle for years, or worse do like me and never buy a DCS product of any kind until my favourite module will be 100% complete and bug-free. hope they will think on that, even if probably they will not even read this. We try and read as much as possible, but we already stated our goal was to have the Hornet completed by the end of the year. 2.5 years is a reasonable time for the development of such a complex module, but if you don't/didnt enjoy the ride, by all means, please consider this if you take part in another Early Access, as has been said, its not for everyone. Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icemaker Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 sorry to contradict you but two years is way more than the normal pre release time. A normal pre release is more six months mostly three. But we the customers have the power, the power of credit card! I won't buy any more modules that are not fully finished, i will buy the supercarrier module because i'm weak! Just take example of 3rd parties who deliver more finished products than you seem capable. Why ED don't make DCS pay and focus on the DCS Core, and make it the huge wonderfull sim it's meant to be, and let 3rd parties do the modules. Make pay updates of DCS adding to it new functionalities and improvements. Maybe in last resort i may accept to pay some fees anually to help ED, but only if they keep the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuiGon Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 sorry to contradict you but two years is way more than the normal pre release time. Well, the Hornet is a way more complex module than normal, so 2.5 years seems absolutely fine to me. But we the customers have the power, the power of credit card! I won't buy any more modules that are not fully finished, i will buy the supercarrier module because i'm weak! I'll happily buy another ED module as the Early Access process for the Hornet and Viper is moving along very well, unlike with many of the 3rd party modules. Just take example of 3rd parties who deliver more finished products than you seem capable. Which 3rd party dev has delivered more finished products than ED? Out of my head I can't even think of many finished 3rd party module at all. There's the MiG-21 which is officially finished and the Mirage 2000C, although the Mirage is in a worse state than ever currently. All other 3rd party modules are still in Early Access as far as I can see... But it doesn't matter anyways who does more modules. I rather have quality than quantity and EDs modules are of much higher quality than most 3rd party modules. Make pay updates of DCS adding to it new functionalities and improvements. And what about the people that are not willing/able to constantly pay for updates? They would stick with the outdated versions of DCS which is a horror for multiplayer and the community... No thanks! DCS is working fine as it is. Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts