While a screenshot is nice, we all know how DCS is in terms of generating wallpaper-quality images. What's the performance? What's the hardware specs needed to get it to that point? If HomeFries is talking about actual combat assets giving a performance hit, I wonder what all those trees are going to do to the FPS numbers.

Highlight for me is the increase in terrain mesh res (note the mountains in the background). Combined arms & Helos will be a whole lot more interesting now.

Nate

What Nate said. Looking forward to this;

Increased terrain mesh. Lots more trees. Awesome? Not if you're flying NOE at 15fps....

Where was it mentioned that you would only get 15fps? Do you get paid for saying negative stuff all the time?

Still looking forward to the terrain enhancements.

I have a GTX-970 and haven't noticed any problem with Nevada. I get a consistent 45 FPS even over demanding areas. One of our squadron members gets the same in Normandy and NTTR with VR. Hasn't noticed any problems. The Normandy maps and Nevada are the new terrain engine and ED says that the optimization for the Caucasus will be on par with them so you won't see a big increase in graphic demands compared to those two maps. You will see a difference from old Caucasus to new Caucasus though. My understanding is that older graphics cards will suffer the consequences. Anything below an 850 from what I heard back awhile ago. A lot of people with older cards have to dumb them down for NTTR and Normandy.

Do I really have to explain this?


Yes, yes I do. I get even more money the more outrageous my negativity is, like saying 15fps. OOooo!! I just got told I'd get a bonus if I were to say 10fps, so yeah... you'd only get 10fps!
Do **YOU** get paid for selective reading and sniping?



And how much vegetation does Nevada have compared to the Caucasus screenshot above? All those trees have to have an FPS impact.... same engine but one map is desert, one map has forests everywhere, surely there will be an FPS hit.

ice, what I don't understand is I know you're a flightsim enthusiast - I have benefited from your BMS posts and tutorials - very, very helpful. Thanks!

I just don't understand all the negativity. Anytime, anyone posts..

Glad to know that you know me OUTSIDE of my DCS forum presence and glad to know you've found my other material helpful.

I have explained my position here many times and don't really want to repeat it.... also, "negativity" seems like such a strong word. Critic, maybe? Skeptic? Caller-Out-of-BullShittery? True, I can get negative sometimes, but I don't think I was in this case. I was simply asking what the FPS hit was to generate such a highly-detailed terrain. I am skeptical of whether that level of detail is achievable alongside playable framerates. Negative would've been me saying the screenshots are crap. I hope you see the difference.

If we can have the above screenshot at consistent 60+ fps on a 1080p res with a GTX 970 or better, then OMG!!!
But until that is shown and proven to be the case.... well, let's just say I stopped playing DCS when they cut the view distance significantly and dropping bomb caused stuttering even if you weren't looking at the explosion. I like counting my chicks after the eggs have hatched.

Ah I see, lots more trees and 2 soviet era living quarters have a sloping roof. boring.

Last time I checked DCS was a combat simulator, not a parachute simulator where you can slowly take in the views as you circle around an airfield whilst preparing for the landing target.

Why? this in not "site seeing simulator"

Looking forward to what exactly? How is a better resolution of mountains a game changer?

what would be a game changer is enemy AI combined arms not being able to see through trees or track human combined arms vehicles through mountains, buildings etc. That to me would be a game changer. Adding more trees is pointless for human controlled vehicles when enemy AI can see and track through them

Guys, can we please not turn this entire thread into another tit for tat exchange? I would really like to see this be a little more productive and I know I'm not alone on that.

To answer your comment Ice, I said that Normandy had the same amount of FPS according to one of our guys as NTTR so it's comparable in optimization. I didn't say that it's not going to be an FPS hit. Going from the old Black Sea map to the new one will very much be a frame rate hit. I was saying that one of our guys didn't see much difference between Normandy and NTTR. So that's telling me that they're optimized to be on the same frame rate level if you compare the same video card setup. ED has already mentioned that they're going to optimize all the maps so they'll be about the same frame rate based on what cards and tech are available. Also, I really don't see any frame rate problems in NTTR with my 970. I can't speak for anyone else obviously.

are you able to give an example or 3 on this?

I am being quite constructive.....not one mention of fish tank water

I was getting smooth (40+) FPS in Nevada with a GTX660 on medium settings, as the DX11 optimization really helps with static objects. With the 660 I would get drops to 20 flying low on the Vegas strip (plenty of objects there). The Nevada scenery may be sparse on trees, but has a lot of buildings/houses in urban areas, and it never felt like a slide show. With Caucasus at High in 1.5, I would get 60+FPS high at speed or low and slow, and would drop to 30fps if supersonic at treetop level. A 660 card is about as mid-grade as one gets. One might have to set everything to medium and reduce the tree radius to 6000m, but I doubt it will be a slide show. Also, with a 1060 on an i5-2500, both 1.5 and 2.1 are smooth as butter.

New map really looks fantastic! Ive mostly stopped playing 1.5 , hard to go back after flying on Nevada and Normandy. So im waiting for this:)

So basically you take off (in auto hover), climb to 1000ft, eject from the KA50 and parachute to the ground over airfields?? what exactly are you waiting for?

you dont like to fly over terrain wich look more realistic and beautiful than before? Okay people are different:)

Engine optimizations are a real thing - on my PC DCS World runs better than first Lock On in 1920x1080 - I know it's an exaggeration but it's a fact. In DCS World 2 over Las Vegas I get 60+ FPS (high settings, i5 6600K with GTX970) with all those buildings and cars. I was truly amazed when I run it for the first time. I don't see anything wrong with game looking better like some other guys, but I do get why some are negative about ED. Their forum curating practices makes people criticism stronger in non-controlled territory.

Anyway I look forward to seeing this new map in action, also for sightseeing as pretty views are one of the things that makes flying breathtaking experience.

And to clear things out I'm not being payed by anyone, I just like flight sims, that's all.