Yeah, very true...and just to clarify, I just said it was "forgotten", just that word, nothing about the year in beta/alpha or whatever the map is, nor the months of bad updates and..."posting rights revoked". Sorry for the off topic Silver!

I hate to say it, but NTTR comes off as really being expensive eye candy at this point. Especially for me as it bogs down on my ancient machine. And that is with an Nvidia 660 that has no problems running other graphics intensive games.

No offense, but it tells you the requirements beforehand. Not saying that 2.0.5 isn't broken in some ways though.
[img]https://gyazo.com/72e37cf06ece793c5280ae21858a7ac7[/img]

Sorry, but a 660 is an old card, almost 5 years old. On top of that, it was only an adequate performer on release, being in the low $200s. It was no 680 or 690. It's a good card for DX9 games, but not DX10+.
I don't know what you refer to as "graphics intensive games", but there are many newer games now that refer to GTX 960s as the required card, with recommended being even higher.

That said, DCS has always been more about the CPU, which you didn't mention, but if it's the same vintage as your 660 it's likely also dated.



The Jedi Master

Stop poking holes in my dreams, m'kay? A poor guy has to go with what he's got and my CPU runs 1.5 just fine and probably 2.0 if I could just swallow my pride and turn down the graphics. By graphics intensive I mean War Thunder (max settings), ArmA III, and Elite Dangerous. I'd love a new computer, but I need money and there has to be more justification for it than to run one game. This is probably one reason why EECH and Falcon are still around though.

Also my CPU is an AMD A6-3650 2.6GHz quad core which would be adequate if DCS World would use all four cores. From what I have read, not many people play DCS World 2.0 anyway.

I seriously doubt it.

I wouldn't upgrade for 2.0, no. Not when everything is going to change (supposedly) with 2.5.

However, I have NEVER upgraded for just one game. I upgrade for ALL my games and all the games to come. Unless you plan on never getting any games newer than the ones you have now, that is.

Arma 3 needs a lot, though, I'm surprised you're satisfied with its performance with that setup unless you have it turned down quite a bit. Never played WT or ED so I can't comment on what they want from a system to look nice.



The Jedi Master

ArmA III runs just fine for me for what little I have played.

An A6 4C/4T (Regardless of PileDriver, Steam Roller or Excavator Architecture) at 2.6Ghz is not enough, I have a FX8350 at 5.3x GHz and it bottlenecks DirectX 9,10, and 11 Games easily,

Entry Level Machine will get you entry Level Performance.

None of the Games listed above come remotely close to battlefield size, rendered visible distance, objects/physics/ai scripts of DCS.

Elite Dangerous is very well optimized, being a space sim, I get super FPS in E:D, in Single GPU, and In VR, it's one of few games I can Run Max Details in VR and maintain 90FPS.

Then somebody better tell ED because DCS runs fine for me. BTW, I wasn't aware DCS was only for the PC elite. I'll keep that in mind next time I am looking for a game for my off-the-shell poor man's PC. Or maybe you'd like to donate some money toward upgrading my machine with me being unemployed and all.

It's not only for "PC Elite", I'm just saying, you cannot expect to launch DCS and Pump all the graphics to max on the Hardware you have. just because the MMO and Console Ports You have can do it.
I can Run War Thunder on Max while keeping my GPU at 2D Idle Clocks (500Mhz)

This isnt a Console Port, This isnt a Arcade Space Shooter, this isnt a Land Based Tactical Sim w/ Limited View Distance.

This is an entire Battlefield Simulator, from Aircraft, To Vehicles, to Physics, to Radars, To Wind, to Weapons.
The World and Events going on in the wold are Vast, enough to bring even the beefiest machines to it's knees.

I just tried to get everything going for the first time in a year. I - probably unwisely - bought Nevada and F-5, but after downloading 2.005 and all NOTHING works:

- Endless request for key, 90% of which fail
- No missions appear
- Any attempt to load anyting results in my being asked for access key, (return to first problem)

WTF DCS? Can I get a refund on this piece of crap becasue I have been through early verison pains with ED, RoF and BoS but being totally unable to run anything really takes the biscuit. Does this company have QA at all?

Use This:
Possible you're not entering the right key for the right module.

Launch App,
Setup Install Paths and Verify them, Green Lights will come up w/ Version Number.
Select Build to manage.
Click the Clean button, (Will remove all unofficial files and ask to delete, keep, backup).
Clcick the Detect Modules Button (Green lights will appear for any that have been installed)
Check the NTTR and F-5E Box, Choose Uninstall to remove them, then when it's finished click install.
After both are installed, click the key icon next to the NTTR, enter NTTR Key in Starforce Prompt., Then Click the key Icon for F-5E and enter F-5 Key in the starforce prompts
Click Launch.

There Are not "Missions" in 2.0 yet, 1.5 has the Stock Training Missions

Also make sure you have the VC14 Runtimes installed.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=53587

That's debatable Skate!

I'd wager it's not so much what's going on in the world but more to do with an archaic engine that isn't efficiently using modern CPUs containing multiple cores.

Yep I'd agree, the trick of using a server to host AI, bumping up player FPS illustrates just this - not sure how feasible it'd be to re-work this though.

Nate

Since ED has already stated that multi-threading will not be pursued because it offer no significant gain, it doesn't matter if it is feasible or not.

Doesn't it take much more work to split the cores up, when everything works together so closely every cycle? This can slow things down I believe in some cases? I did see a post about using a server on ED's forum and how it can help. Be nice if the AI at least could be offloaded to a different core like it sort of is, I guess for multiplayer.

Sounds like it would double the workload for little benefit and we don't need ED changing direction now do we, not until after all the other many high priorities, well the stuff on the consumer side that should be the highest priority. F18, Strait of Hormuz, weapon guidance AI and ATC, Sort of a good Stable 2.5 Alpha/Beta/Omega would be nice too? All that in two weeks right! This year?

That statement makes me laugh so hard! People who are not a programmer or, in case they are, have never had even a slight experience in multithread in games will fall into that extremely lame and lazy excuse.

To make a game fully multithreading it requires developers to completely change the pattern/paradigm of what has been done for years (eg. many still develop games following a deep OOP pattern which is basically not compatible with multithreading). So since some just try to fit the old way into a multithreading scenario (eg. by just assigning a given system to a given threat which is a naive and very bad multithread implementation), they get to the conclusion that the gain is not enough for the amount of overhead and prematurely drop multithreading.
Modern games will benefit from multithread because the dev community has begun to address the problem by applying others patten/paradigm (eg. break data into task and threat them as such and regulate them with a task manager similar to what an OS would). I believe that once there will be 2-3 AAA games that make TRULY FULLY use of multicore engine, the performance gap might be so big that old devs would not be in the condition to hide behind the "too little gain for the overhead" and devs will be forced to start new projects by using a modernized engine instead of trying to adapt old one with obvious poor results.

Now speaking of ED, i just say that they have no excuse to hide behind because not only they have just made a new engine, although only the render layer, but also they wasted resource to work on 3 different version at the same time. They had the chance to do things right and compatible with the inevitable future but no no ... let's just waste resource and not only do things that will be already old when released but also let's work on 3 version separately just to do a bad use of resources .... you know...just for fun XD

To be fair, the excuse is used by many other devs because they fear the idea of having to create a completely different engine from scratch, that they have no experience with, but they are just postponing the inevitable. So it's nothing personal against ED, it becomes personal when you realize that they already wasted resource for 3 different version when every thing could have been canalized to only one version!!! for the mother of the bad use/optimization of resources.