Only time I care about airfields is when I take off and land.....most of the terrain I fly over is no where near an airfield.....yes some people are different. There are those who fly any given plane\helo over terrain away from airfields, cities and the like and those who do the 'tourist' thing and look at what is new over towns\cities and airfields. You must be in 'tourist' category

as for your sig.....Pasta is cooked well before the sauce....I can't see anyone who cooks pasta....forgetting the pasta. The water however tends to excite discussion. I like to add salt as it lowers the boiling temperature when I am making anything to do with pasta, HomeFries on the other hand tends to add chlorine. "Those who do not know how to cook pasta tend to burn the water" there's a free sig for you matey, one that makes sense.

interesting comment. Ask an A350 pilot how the terrain looks at 36,000ft. Hardly a 'breathtaking experience" Like I said in a previous comment. "taking off or landing" and to add to that, at ground level in a cockpit doing a cold start.....no one cares....really no one cares (about the trees and sloped roof)

Its not just the airports that gets an update its the whole map! And to my sig its a play of words for " those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" i can understand it went over your head and didnt make sense for you...

Last time I checked the thread was "New Caucasus Map Batumi Comparison" therefor all comments within are about OP's original post being a shared link to the topic at hand. What does the 'whole map' have to do with a topic about an airfield?

as for your sig.....I am still on point, my comment still stands, like when pasta boils and you turn the heat down to simmer as in "let it stand while the sauce heats"

My point has proven.....numerous times now

I think you and me are people who will not get along very well so i will not discuss with you any further, i do not like negative and bitter people. I just replied positivly to a pic of a sim i like much, i do not need to explain myself to you why i like further improvement of this sim.. you have very negative tone in your post and i think youre trying to get an argument, go argue with yourself and have a good sunday!

Best check the stove.....water came to a boil over an hour ago....don't forget to add the pasta

I don't have to ask as I seen it for myself and it's a personal experience so I'm talking for myself here and apparently you know all the other people thoughts and talk on their behalf (no one cares part).

And who said anything about how the terrain looks from angels 36 anyway? I was talking about the views in general but I can see you like adding random stuff yourself just to push your point.

Who pays you? BMS?

Let me respond in this way. My comments prior were to posters, like yourself to give examples of how screenshots of an airport actually hold merit in the simulator when focus is on other area's within the sim such as MFD's, startup procedures whilst looking around the cockpit etc etc. Calling me out whilst not giving actual examples to follow up on the posts but rather attack me for asking questions and posting a belief that an airport at 36,000ft is really in it's entirety FACTUALLY is a waste of ED's time.

I've proved my point. Obviously screenshots of an airport and work done on given airport has no factual bearing on the map quality overall. A poster before you stated that "whole map" my comments prior were most of my flight time is away from airports. The consensus is most flight time is carried out away from airports including your own in this very quote.....so why not show a screen shot of the map east of Gudauta where the canyons are, or the dam etc etc.....who cares for an airfield update. Not me, not you, not anyone vying for some kind of response when you are factually agreeing to my points whilst arguing that you do not agree to my points.

You should be pleased with the new map so. This is already in place in Normandy.

EDIT:- since this came up I decided to play with it a bit, it is actually quite well done. For example, A Vulcan will engage a Helo through a clearing when deep in the forest, however only if it has Line of Sight. Alter the flight path slightly so the Helo passes almost over head but no line of sight, and the Vulcan can't engage. Individual tees are now calculated for LoS. I tried did the same for 2 Tanks, and only once LoS through the the very edge of the forest was acquired, they would engage.

EDIT2:- another cool thing I've discovered is the AI Helo will get low when a threat is detected and use the tree line as cover while escaping.

Nate

Oh man... I LOL'ed so much with the recent exchange. People really need to grow up and be able to discuss and accept negativity and criticism if such statements are true. "Productive" is not all back-slapping and high-fiving... in fact, I would say that to get better, you **NEED** the negative more than you need the positive. You don't get better by knowing "what you did right."


Which part of Normandy? Which part of Nevada? Regardless, I doubt any of those maps had as much "objects" (trees) as in the screenshot. Maybe The Strip? But I doubt it. What I'm saying is that even if they are comparably optimized, that much trees and objects is sure to place a load on the game engine and thus the GPU, resulting in lower framerates. The question is... how low does it go?


ED's like that bad boyfriend that promises you that last Friday was the last time he was going to cheat on you ED can say all they want.... but all of that is useless. ED counters ED. "EISTC."
I will say that the screenshot looks cool, but I am not impressed. What would impress me is several low-level flights over that terrain at 1080p minimum with a FRAPS counter on the corner of the screen and a description of the machine's hardware specs in the video description.

Excellent post HF! I remember in Allied Force days and I was on a medium-spec PC, most of my flights were at the low-20s FPS and everything felt smooth.... then I got a new GPU and got mid- to high-30s and everything still felt smooth.... but faster. Low-level flying definitely had the trees zipping by much quicker. So FPS and smoothness is not just important, but 30+ FPS is also a factor.


What's going to be interesting here is how the engine will then do the transition AFTER that 6000m especially when you can view further out than 6000m. This setting may be fine if you're tree-top level on a Ka-50, but how would it look like when you're in an A-10 at 5,000ft? 10,000ft? I would say that all that foilage would look funny if it suddenly stops after a certain distance. Much better to have LESS foilage that goes out FURTHER.




Hahaha!! I think what Winfield is saying is that there are other aspects of DCS that need work. Realistic and Beautiful terrain is good... for a civvie flight simulator. I would say that aside from takeoffs and landings, you wouldn't really "notice" the terrain in a true combat flight simulator as you work to keep your SA up and spot bandits. People are different, yes, and some of us view this along the expectation that DCS is a COMBAT flight simulator, and that's why we find faults with it. If we were to treat DCS as a sight-seeing civvie simulation featuring combat aircraft, if we were to treat DCS as a wallpaper and screenshot generator featuring combat aircraft, then ED is doing a good job!




It's not just their forum practices... their decisions regarding their direction in the sim, their failure to meet their own deadlines, etc... Go and play the sim for a decent amount of time and you'll see patches breaking stuff that weren't broken before, modules that are incomplete despite being released for years, issues with the game engine itself that are not being addressed.... but those don't matter!! Here, take a look at this new map with more trees!!

Hope that clears it up a bit!


Yes indeed! Show us proof of how good it runs on modern hardware!!


Hahaha!! Funny how you have to make that statement now.... then question someone else's statements....

Interesting! Can you show us a vid of this in action? Have they also fixed the laser sights on BMPs?

It was a joke Ice, didn't the winky smiley gave that up?

I know now why Wags hesitates before releasing some new material. It's just a teaser screenshot showing one small bit of the map and already here we are arguing over the same stuff. I know ED breaks s*** up. Just recently they released update 1.5.7 and ditched one of the Su-33 campaign I was just flying. Thankfully I got the deleted files from Rudel so I was able to enjoy the rest of the campaign. But let's be honest how many sims are out there for us to enjoy? I fly what I can, BMS, DCS, ROF, old IL-2, new IL2. These aren't '90. Let's cherish what we've got left. There aren't many developers willing to risk develop for the niche genre that we all enjoy.

With this cheerful statement I'm ejecting from this thread. Have fun guys. Over and out.

Edit: Holy crap there weren't a winking smiley face in my post after all, abort ejection!!! Sorry for the mix up. The second part still stands however.

Only if the past has been forgotten for a long time...

It has nothing to do with growing up and be being able to handle it Ice. I mentioned this before. We're such a small community and we need to bring more people into the fold and not alienate them. The problem with all the intense rhetoric is that it drives potential mates away. It does nothing to foster any type of camaraderie at all. I also said before that you are totally entitled to your opinions regarding ED products. Everyone has opinions either for or against simulation stuff, we all know that. But disagreeing and being disagreeable are two different animals, and I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about anyone. Everyone knows that you and I have traded barbs but I'm trying to turn a new page and move on. I would just ask that we all try to keep that in mind going forward. That's all.

The recent DCS versions seem to run poor for me. Long loading times, mission editor will freeze while selecting loadouts for a few seconds, and there can be micro stutters in gameplay (Nevada). My frame rates are around 70-100, maybe as low as the 50s in some areas. I hope something is done to smooth out the game a bit. And hopefully a new GPU can increase performance. I would like to force more AA but it is not possible with my GTX1070 at 1440P.

I have the same micro stutter problem. One of our guys says that vram being maxed out has a lot to do with it. I can sympathize with your problem. I may have to upgrade my video card soon but for now it's tolerable for the most part. I'm hoping that they'll continue to work on the optimization and it will get somewhat better but that may be expecting too much. I haven't been using NTTR much lately. I spend most of my time on Black Sea and I still get stuttering. Some of the updates have fixed it and then it comes back. So I know that they can fix it but the returning is a little frustrating.

Ethics in communication are not overridden by a desire to maintain appearances.

I'm interested in hearing what systems ED is using to see the results they are happy with prior to releasing each update. I understand they use an internal 2.2 version, so how optimized is that and to what baseline of hardware?!?

I think the majority of users are still hopeful they can dredge out enough juice from their 3-4 year old systems, but arent getting the performance they want.

I built my machine last year with top of the line specs. i7 6700, 32 Gigs DDR4, SSD and a nVidia 980 <-- shortfall. After the most current updates to both 1.5 and 2.1, I still suffer from stuttering at VR settings which are half of what I could do with TrackIR and on a 2k monitor.