Guy’s what’s with all the negativity here, for a free update lol For anyone looking for a little more constructive criticism of the latest download for the Free DCS 2.5 installation.

Simple' 2.5 Setup Guide.. Starting point to improve your FPS

New article on rockpapershotgun.com
RPS: For those who haven’t been paying attention, what exactly is the 2.5 engine upgrade?

Some details in that article about the DCS world's DC
"We are pursuing much more ambitious plans that incorporate community, cause-and-effect continuity, strategic and tactical goals, player performance tracking and rewards, and accounting for time periods."

"We are also working on other new effects like rain on canopy, aircraft glinting, and further improvements to smoke and fire effects."

"For the past several months, we have also been working on Vulkan API integration into DCS World, which we expect to result in a substantial performance boost."


MagzTV

System Specs: CPU: Skylake i7 6700k RAM: 16gb 3600MHz DDR4 GPU: Galax GTX 1070 EXOC Sniper



Ralfi's Alley - DCS 2.5 is finally here!



WW2 Normandy Map DCS 2.5



ED’s Video (Cool video had to post it! Wow GA! Nice job!!)



DCS: F/A-18C and World 2.5



DCS World - New 2.5 Caucasus Map - From T-72 point of view



DCS World: News January 2018 (Interview on DCS 2.5 with Matt Wagner)

So negativity is all you see when reading posts, nothing more in there?
Thanks for the YT links, seen most last days searching for DCS 2.5 but all I see is "oh look how good it looks" and abolutely nothing simulator related, but it can be my mistake for expecting more than eye candy with 2.5 if eye candy was actually all 2.5 was about. I honestly don't know but so many years with delays and moved release date every frigging year since 1976 (or so) just for looks, I cannot imagine this is all that was intended.

You seems to be in the loop, are there any new LUA commands/keywords we can use for mission building?

Not that much in the loop, I would ask guy's like Grimes, FlightControl and Mbot for things like this, you can find FlightControl in the MOOSE section.

Eye candy is one part yes, they needed to upgrade 1.5 to work with the other maps, so why not make it pretty? it's the only sim I mostly use now days because of the VR implementation, 2.5 needs work here with VR still, perhaps the Vulkan API will help here?

I just enjoy the flight models in DCS, the FMs just seem much more realistic to me, even more so when at the edge of the envelope to other sims and sim developers. It's nice to just fly around in DCS, it suits the time I have available during the week, small little missions just suit me and this update is magic for the choppers! I could just fly around all day down low in the choppers in VR.

Not sure of another sim that could give you this type of experience?

Ok, fine.
Personally I do not use DCS as FSX to look at sceneries but, like all my sims, trying to recreate historical scenarios or, to me, interesting "What if" scenarios based on historical settings.

IL-2 Dover gives me full access in C# to produce whatever game mechanics I need, IL-2 1946 give me an unprecedented vast array of assets to recreate history but less access (no scripting) and ArmA series give me full access though scripts to create any mission I can think of even full size CTI (arma players knows what that means) and even full modding access only limited by my own uselessness (but I have 1944 style mods for two faction based on IFA3).

I have shelved IL-2 BoX due to useless editor (only fly it occasionally, FSX style like you, since it is by far the best looking environment I've seen - but actually using it, no not really).

DCS is open for scripting (sadly it is LUA though, the most retarded environment since Rommel left North Africa and only suited for coding stuff that only need 100 lines tops) which allows me to generate flights on-the-go but as soon as 3 planes are airborne it lags to smitherin (don't even start adding ground units). Generated AI flights do not complete my requests but tend to orbit target or just fly back home - can be my code but trying ME setup they tend to do the same (not matching threat environment so apples and oranges). And don't get me going on AI SEAD flights getting targeted by SA-11 radar and going vertical with idle engine dropping all Kh-25's/AS-9's and all other muntions as their best evasive move.

But I can see that if time only allows for brief sightseeings DCS is all good and all complainers are just haters and should shut up and stop spreading negativity.

Sadly the more bling bling producers add to todays simulators the more bling bling players will come to their defence telling old simmers to go away.

I agree, DCS still needs more work in areas, having the sim back altogether now is a good start lol, hopefully these things will get more attention now.

Have you played around with MOOSE before?

MOOSE Framework

FlightControl and many others have put some effort into setting MOOSE up. When building small missions for VR, I only spawn in flights or ground units when needed, by using triggers and random unit placement, to keep the unit count down to a minimum. The Vulkan API integration will hopefully help out here in the future. quick-look-vulkan-3dmark-api-overhead

I am late to the DCS game, only getting into it in 2014 adn then not really into it until the last year or so. Personally, I don't see many problems with 2.5. I mean, I'm not picky graphics-wise and I think my rig does decent work with it.. I'm more concerned with flight model and realism, and functionality in terms of things like campaigns and missions. IN this case, I've noticed a few things. I primarily run DCS through Steam. I recently downloaded 2.5 via ED, and then I noticed that the open beta was available via Steam too (even though it wasn't supposed to be for another 2 weeks or so) so I checked both out. I found that the ED 2.5 didn't take in my logbook and campaign history, and my downloaded Su-27 Campaign "Ultimate Argument: diodn't migrate over. it started me fresh at zero everything in my history. However, MP was available. Steam's 2.5 open beta retained my logbook and all my campaigns but not the campaign history and there was no MP at all. I tried copying my logbook and campaign history into the ED 2.5 but unless I put them in the wrong place, it had no effect.

But for 2.5 in general I like the new eye candy. The greens of the trees were noticeable more vibrant, which I liked, but now they do seem a little bit unnaturally lime green to me, but it's not that big a deal to me. I like the improved smoke trails on the missiles, and the better explosion effects. I'm still exploring around...I didn't change any graphics settings on my card or anything so maybe things can be tweaked more but It hink I'm fine with what I have.

Here are some video clips of 2.5 winter setting







v6,
boNes

Good to see you back David

Steve_wm, you forgot the most important YT link!

That's brilliant

Nate

The '2.5 Graphics Test' video clearly shows the over saturation of the greens/trees....it makes it look like Battlefield heroes!

Haha Paradaz, nice one

But I've seen both saturated and "over contrast" videos with excessively dark pits but most actully look good and I am sure there is a setting for most that will make it look good.
Some work may need to be done by removing cache folders and what not but I am sure all of us sould be able to make it look stunning.

If only the combat sim part could get the same work that they put into looks and bling bling.

One day, DCS will be awesome. Hopefully in my lifetime.

Paradaz - Please stop teasing us with those F-14 launch new carrier models.

This guy is using reshade 3.1.0

I think it's a classic, very funny. hehe

and the comments
"Sometimes i wonder just what on earth developers must think when something this unexpected is happens with their game.."

"RedKite I think developers laugh hard when they see it, then they cry hard when looking at the code understanding the fix is rewriting some old code written by a guy who quit a year ago..."

"That Bradley's flight model is way off"

From what I've seen, DCS 2.5 has been more than visuals. But at the same time it's not a revolution. It's more like a stable base to build the rest of the sim on. They've fixed some nagging issues and fleshed out a few features, with more planned additions in the future. I also have to say, while I'm not a graphics oriented person, high fidelity visuals do help the simulator experience to a degree.

In any case, I've found improved performance in DCS 2.5 allowing me to have larger and/or smoother missions. The AI has become a little smarter. Previously I needed to be very careful when leaving an airbase because my flight would just burn all their fuel in AB trying to catch me. To my surprise this wasn't the case in 2.5 and they seem to join up with you a bit quicker.

I'm still rebuilding some pre 2.5 missions so I'll learn more as I go. From what I've seen so far I'll again call 2.5 a stable base to build the future of the sim. It's not yet a perfect simulator and you still have to respect its limitations.

As far as the AI goes, they require some setup to behave well. The default tasks in DCS are pretty poor, sometimes I kind of wish they would be removed. Whenever I add an AI flight to a serious mission I delete their default tasks and add my own. You can force the AI to hold on to weapons as well as ignore threats. I didn't have to do such a thing for a reason mission involving SEAD that I made though. Tornados armed with ALARM successfully destroyed a SA-11 site in one go. Like wise with a strike mission rebuilt from 1.2 or 1.5, F-15E's struck some buildings with very little set up.

The are issues for sure. In my opinion things get worse the further back in time you go. DCS is tuned better for modern air combat with advanced aircraft (teen series, Flanker, Fulcrum) but not so well for older planes (F-86, MiG-15, F-5). This need to be resolved at some point.

As far as criticism goes I like to hear it and provide it myself. I definitely want DCS to get better as it has a lot of potential. At the moment though I do feel that it's worth flying in. If you're lucky enough to be able to play with coordinated human players online, then DCS really shines, and has even in past versions. Unfortunately this isn't always an option.

The AI does not understand aircraft performance such as minimum time to climb, maximum gradient, etc. If the AI wants to gain 10,000' in a few miles they will point straight up until their speed decays and the maximum AOA safety kicks in. So a climb that should have taken 30 seconds takes 30 minutes because the AI is sitting on the AOA limit getting practically no climb.

Right now if you tell your AI wingman to change formation position a few meters he'll break off, miss the target position, circle around 360, and use copious afterburner to catch up, run out of fuel, and eject.

That's unacceptable.

What a way to say some words without saying anything of substance. Not a revolution? Stable base? Really? How long have they been working on this? Is this not their CORE sim? Is this the best they can do with that prioritization for that time? As for stable base.... just lolz!!


I think this is the first time I've read you criticize DCS and a mild one at that. AI is the only thing you're having issues with?


We are all on the same page then! However, the threshold for some is higher than others.

Yes and this is still an issue to a degree. This also varies with aircraft. The AI will pull vertical in 4th gen fighters and not be very optimal, but often succeed. In lower performing aircraft it will start to struggle. In planes like the A-10 the AI can be really clumsy.


This is what I expected to happen on my first flight as part of a formation in 2.5 because I used a ramp start, which of course staggers the aircraft on takeoff. To my surprise my flight caught up with me pretty quickly. This is definitely improved compared to 1.5, at least from what I've seen so far. I've also tried changes in formation and it hasn't been an issue. I've been flying the F-15 and F-5 mostly though.




I feel like I was pretty clear. 2.5 is the core sim, and it's pretty stable, at least for me. I've know that others are posting problems, but it's hard to say what percentage of people are having issues. 2.5 is also less than a week old, so it's fully possible that these problems will be resolved as people experiment more. I was running with 30-40 FPS originally, but now I'm above 60 just by playing with settings. With the core sim in place, I'd think it would be easier for ED to maintain and update DCS, we'll have to wait and see.


I thought we agreed that DCS is better as an airframe sim than a combat sim way back when? Wouldn't that count? AI performance is one of the main issues as smarter AI would go a long way toward improving the combat side of the sim outside of the planes themselves. Weapons/damage model need some help too, but overall they're in better shape. There are some standouts like the MiG-15 AI which seems to be a flying battleship. Flyers of the Russian fighters also report a lot of tracking issues with the R-27 in particular.

As far as running 2.5, I've not faced any major issues outside of maybe MSAA's impact on FPS. I can live without that though. I'm making missions for myself to fly and so far so good, I have a pretty decent working combat sim. It can get better and I want to try to get ED to focus on the areas that need improvement, but what I have so far is very much in a working state.