I got a new monitor that runs at 2560x1440 resolution and cranked up both BMS 4.33 and DCS, and DCS updated to 1.5.2, and it's amazing how much improved those are. I am particularly impressed with DCS being able to improve not only the graphical quality, but also the performance (I know, I'm late to the party on that one).
I am still getting things set up in BMS after all the control changes, so I don't have much to show there yet. Here's a general flight shot:
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..." Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!" MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands." Sauron
Does performance stay the same with the same hardware if you upgrade to a high resolution monitor? For example, with my specs below, if I get X performance in a sim with current setup but then upgrade to a high res monitor does the performance stay at X? I guess I'm asking because I thought to push higher resolutions it taxes the hardware more? Or is that just when trying to downsample or push a resolution that is not NATIVE to your monitor that it starts to affect performance?
Thanks for the comments everyone, I'm having fun with the new updates and monitor
Coot, as I understand it, performance at higher resolutions is more a function of the video card and not the CPU, so if your card can handle it, your other specs won't be a factor. When I was looking at monitors, I didn't get a 4K monitor because I read that my GTX 970 wouldn't handle it, but would handle 2560x1440, so that's what I went with. And with my eyesight, it's probably more than enough I don't see any performance hit on my rig at the higher resolution.
RS, I agree, the new BMS terrain is much improved, and while not quite up to DCS standards, I think it's closer than many might expect. The biggest difference I see is how many buildings there are. Here's a shot from DCS down low, and keep in mind this is 1.5, not 2.0: http://www.techflyer.net/ARC/DCS%202016-01-24%2018-27-21-55.png
And I don't have a good screenshot of BMS down low, but I made a quick video for a friend, and here that is:
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
That would obviously be great, Troll, but I think it's hard to say one is clearly better than the other at this point, graphically anyway. The terrain is a little better in DCS, as well as the lighting, but I think the smoke and vapor look better in BMS, and I like its explosions and ground smoke much better.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
BMS sure can be pretty and I can't praise the BMS guys enough for all their amazing work on Falcon over the years.
With regards to grafics DCS with EDGE plays in a different league though.
Thankfully I can play and enjoy both sims.
Agree on all points. I never had a "holy cow this could be real life" reaction to either sim, until EDGE and Nevada came along.
I stand firm in my belief that visuals DO matter a great deal in a sim.
My Rig:i5-3570k @ 4.2 GHZ W/ Corsair Hydro H110 Cooler / Asus Sabertooth Z77 Mobo / GTX 1070/ 16 Gigs DDR3 RAM / A Few SSDs, and a Bunch of HDDs / All held together by: Corsair C70 Case
Other Assets Deployed: HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog SN#22621/CH Throttle Quad/MFG Crosswind Pedals SN#0004 TrackIR TIR 5 w/ TrackClip Pro Simpit: Obutto R3VOLUTION
I haven't seen EDGE on my PC yet, so I was just comparing what I've been able to use directly.
EDGE sounds pretty cool, and as I mentioned, 1.5.2 is an amazing upgrade in graphics and performance, and how often does that happen? I just wish DCS would do something about the explosions. They all look the same, and the A-A missile strikes look a little cartoonish. The BMS explosions look more realistic to me, compared to DCS in its current form, anyway.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
That would obviously be great, Troll, but I think it's hard to say one is clearly better than the other at this point, graphically anyway. The terrain is a little better in DCS, as well as the lighting, but I think the smoke and vapor look better in BMS, and I like its explosions and ground smoke much better.
Umm, you're kidding right? I love F4BMS for what it is, but it's not even close in the graphics department. Just like DCS isn't even close in the campaign department. BMS has a world that feels alive and a war to fight in, DCS doesn't plain and simple. That being said, a few 3d trees sprinkled around a land of flat objects and flat, painted on buildings doesn't deserve to be even mentioned in the same class as a DCS map, even if they're small and void of life.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz