hello guys , can someone (hope from ED) update me on the Nevada map status? When I purchased A10C beta, many many months ago, I've been told that I would have got the Nevada map for free when released. As far as I can see now it's not clear when it will be released and if I shall pay for it...
thanks Alessandro
As has been stated several times before, the map itself is almost done (NEVADA). The long delay is due to development of a new rendering engine that is capable of rending the this map and its very high level of detail at acceptable frame rates. Developing a new rendering engine is a very long and complex matter. There have also been some delays due to some changes in staffing and the team having to work on some other projects in parallel. When there is new news, there will be an announcement. At this time, given the work on the engine, it is not even possible to run the map to take screen shots.
Maybe if Matt sent this to one of the many websites (like ours) to spread the word about the news, people would be better informed
Usually producers go out of their way to be in contact with other websites as a way to foster good relations and keep those responsible up to date, this way we would all be better appraised of what goes on.
I don't think it's fair to come down on someone for asking for an update. It has, after all, been 6 months since anything official has been said about Nevada.
Matt has always gone out of his way to inform the public as best he can with the dynamic nature of building a flight sim where things change by the hour, minute, etc. Try not to put a condesending spin on his posts as he does not intend them to be that way. Ask away but don't get a case of the ass when you don't hear what you want to hear.
Some very early work-in-progress images of the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) map within DCS World 2. Much tuning and bug squashing to do, but we thought you guys might like to see a preliminary look.
Very excited about the new mission editor. IIRC you should be able to now place any 3D-object onto the map-editor directly instead of a map symbol and 'hoping for the best'. This should really simplify creating a mission. It is how Flanker 1.X did it which, to me, is still a shining example of how things should be done in a GUI. Why ED felt the need to change that into something that we currently have is beyond me.
Anyway, Lots of things to like in this update. Looking forward to building a complete new PC, primarily, to play this title at the highest framerate possible. Now, if I can only get an hour or two of 'me-time' from the 'one-who-should-be-obeyed'. ;-)
Very excited about the new mission editor. IIRC you should be able to now place any 3D-object onto the map-editor directly.................
I don't think that's confirmed - it is on the cards, a lot of work is going on to make it happen, but I've not seen it said it was coming with 2.0. Would be nice to be wrong though
Lake Havasu? If we fly really low with the TGP during spring break...
Just like the OH-58 getting footage of a couple knocking boots in the car.
"We've got activity out here, but I don't really think we need to report it." "What do you see?" "Appears to be fornication in a convertible." "Do a Target Store and I'll be there in a second!"
To be clear, the actual borders are a bit of a guess right now, right?
From the topography in the map from ED, it looks like LA isn't included. That's fine by me though, it would have been odd to have half of LA just outside the border of the map. It wouldn't make sense to model, because you couldn't really have operations so close to edge of the map.
To be clear, the actual borders are a bit of a guess right now, right?
From the topography in the map from ED, it looks like LA isn't included. That's fine by me though, it would have been odd to have half of LA just outside the border of the map. It wouldn't make sense to model, because you couldn't really have operations so close to edge of the map.
That makes sense to me. It looks like some of the Grand Canyon is included, which is great. Flying through it would be fun. Last game I did that in was Jane's USAF, although DCS aircraft are much more fun to fly. I would rather have the canyon fully realized than only having a quarter of LA to.
That makes sense to me. It looks like some of the Grand Canyon is included, which is great. Flying through it would be fun. Last game I did that in was Jane's USAF, although DCS aircraft are much more fun to fly. I would rather have the canyon fully realized than only having a quarter of LA to.
This would be great. A fully rendered and accurately modeled Grand Canyon would be amazing, especially since only a few people (helicopter pilots ferrying supplies to the tribes in the canyon) get to actually fly within the canyon itself.
Besides, when the F/A-18 comes out someone could make a mission of the dogfight from Independence Day (though we would need some serious tanking support to get there from El Toro).
This would be great. A fully rendered and accurately modeled Grand Canyon would be amazing, especially since only a few people (helicopter pilots ferrying supplies to the tribes in the canyon) get to actually fly within the canyon itself.
There are tours, too. Those same tribes have full jurisdiction over their lands, and tour operators are allowed to fly paying passengers to designated areas in the canyon that belong to those tribes.
I have the video I made 10 years ago on my old camera, I need to get it on DVD. I taped the flight in from the airport next to the MGM, over the Hoover Dam, all the way to the landing site, then taped several other helos that landed or flew by to other sites, had lunch, then flew back ending with a fly by of the Strip.
Besides, when the F/A-18 comes out someone could make a mission of the dogfight from Independence Day (though we would need some serious tanking support to get there from El Toro).
Don't have to worry about that any more. El Toro is now nothing but overpriced shopping centers and housing developments full of McMansions.
This would be great. A fully rendered and accurately modeled Grand Canyon would be amazing, especially since only a few people (helicopter pilots ferrying supplies to the tribes in the canyon) get to actually fly within the canyon itself.
There are tours, too. Those same tribes have full jurisdiction over their lands, and tour operators are allowed to fly paying passengers to designated areas in the canyon that belong to those tribes.
I have the video I made 10 years ago on my old camera, I need to get it on DVD. I taped the flight in from the airport next to the MGM, over the Hoover Dam, all the way to the landing site, then taped several other helos that landed or flew by to other sites, had lunch, then flew back ending with a fly by of the Strip.
The Jedi Master
Sounds like you took the tour I took on my first visit to Las Vegas. Flew in a Beech King Air over the Hoover Dam to an airstrip on the rim of the Grand Canyon, then a helicopter ride to the bottom of the canyon. From there, took a boat ride down the Colorado river, back in the helicopter for a ride back up to the rim, lunch on the edge of the canyon, what an incredible view. Flew back to Vegas for a night helicopter tour of the strip. I got to do 2 things I always wanted to do, see the Grand Canyon and fly in a helicopter, both on the same day. Best $300.00 I ever spent. I too have it on video (hi-8), still need to get it transferred to DVD.
Sounds like you took the tour I took on my first visit to Las Vegas. Flew in a Beach King Air over the Hoover Dam to an airstrip on the rim of the Grand Canyon, then a helicopter ride to the bottom of the canyon. From there, took a boat ride down the Colorado river, back in the helicopter for a ride back up to the rim, lunch on the edge of the canyon, what an incredible view. Flew back to Vegas for a night helicopter tour of the strip. I got to do 2 things I always wanted to do, see the Grand Canyon and fly in a helicopter, both on the same day. Best $300.00 I ever spent. I too have it on video (hi-8), still need to get it transferred to DVD.
You did all that for $300??! Wow...I'll be $300 would get you about 15 minutes in a helo over the strip today...
Sounds like you took the tour I took on my first visit to Las Vegas. Flew in a Beach King Air over the Hoover Dam to an airstrip on the rim of the Grand Canyon, then a helicopter ride to the bottom of the canyon. From there, took a boat ride down the Colorado river, back in the helicopter for a ride back up to the rim, lunch on the edge of the canyon, what an incredible view. Flew back to Vegas for a night helicopter tour of the strip. I got to do 2 things I always wanted to do, see the Grand Canyon and fly in a helicopter, both on the same day. Best $300.00 I ever spent. I too have it on video (hi-8), still need to get it transferred to DVD.
You did all that for $300??! Wow...I'll be $300 would get you about 15 minutes in a helo over the strip today...
That's Vegas for you, very reasonable. This was in 2004 at the West Rim. Same place they have that walkway over the canyon now.
Sounds like you took the tour I took on my first visit to Las Vegas. Flew in a Beach King Air over the Hoover Dam to an airstrip on the rim of the Grand Canyon, then a helicopter ride to the bottom of the canyon. From there, took a boat ride down the Colorado river, back in the helicopter for a ride back up to the rim, lunch on the edge of the canyon, what an incredible view. Flew back to Vegas for a night helicopter tour of the strip. I got to do 2 things I always wanted to do, see the Grand Canyon and fly in a helicopter, both on the same day. Best $300.00 I ever spent. I too have it on video (hi-8), still need to get it transferred to DVD.
You did all that for $300??! Wow...I'll be $300 would get you about 15 minutes in a helo over the strip today...
More or less what I saw advertised. 15-20 minutes for $240 or more.
NO ONE expects their release this year! Their chief weapon is surprise! Surprise and fear. Their TWO chief weapons are surprise, and fear, and a ruthless release policy! Their THREE chief...I'll reply again.
Sadly I too doubt we will see DCS World 2.0 this year. I am really disappointed it will likely be delayed yet again. Hopefully they are just making it as stable as possible by testing it more thoroughly than usual before releasing it and it will be announced/released shortly.
Considering the goodies that are coming (the screenshots are way over the top!)- I can wait. In the "pick two out of three" schema (Fast - Good - Cheap ) I know what I will choose.
DCS World 2 is the next iteration of the Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) series that will include a new graphics engine (developed in our Eagle Dynamics Graphics Engine development environment). In addition to the new graphics engine, DCS World 2 will also usher in the ability to have multiple maps integrated into DCS (both developed by Eagle Dynamics and our 3rd party partners). Maps currently in developed include the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), Strait of Hormuz, and Europe 1944. The Map SDK is available to qualified 3rd party development teams. Interested parties can PM me with detailed proposals.
Some features we plan to include in DCS World 2 include: Direct X 11 support Improved performance Dynamic shadowing of the terrain and mountains Improved weather Improved lighting Clipmap support for new maps Higher object counts Higher resolution ground terrain mesh and textures for new maps (between 1 and 64 meters per pixel depending on area of map and clipmap level) More detailed tree models with collision for new maps Better graphical effects High resolution road textures for new maps Ability for road signs and light signals for new maps Additional ground clutter (rocks, cactuses, etc.) for new maps Skeleton animation for infantry Better use of multiple GPUs (CPU multi-threading is not being pursued as it will provide little if any gain) Ability to create dedicated servers in the future Unified front end and simulation .exe Improved API sound support Improved Oculus Rift support The Black Sea map will see several benefits of this including better lighting, improved grass, effects and weather.
We hope to release DCS World 2 in early 2015. This is not a promise but simply our best estimate given the current development status as of December 2014. We also cannot promise that each feature listed above will make it into the initial release.
The Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) Map
The first new map being developed for DCS World 2 is the NTTR map.
This map originally started as a third party project with no input from Eagle Dynamics. However, as we started to develop DCS: A-10C, we realized that this map could serve as a great location for the A-10C training missions. To make this happen, we officially partnered with the third party team to help make this happen. We were so confident in this endeavor that we included a very early version as part of the original A-10C beta.
Unfortunately, due to several reasons, the third party team dissolved and Eagle was left holding the bag of a promised NTTR map to customers that had purchased it as part of A-10C. After taking over the project, it soon became apparent that the current engine was incapable of running the map at the desired quality levels vs. performance. In order to realize this map as first envisioned, an entirely new image generator would be required... this later became a key element of the new graphics engine.
Building a new graphics engine is never an easy or fast task and DCS World 2 has proved no different. However, the NTTR map has provided an excellent test bed for the new map rendering technologies. So, all that being said, the NTTR was developed for the following reasons:
1- For training missions of western aircraft. 2- To honor A-10C beta purchases. 3- Allow creation of Red Flag type missions centered on the NTTR. 4- New map technology test bed.
Some facts about the NTTR map: -Airfields include Nellis AFB, Groom Lake AFB, Creech AFB, and Las Vegas McCarren. At a later point we hope to also add Tonopah AFB.
-We hope to release an Alpha test version within the next couple of months depending how debugging goes.
-Currently, most of the art aspects are complete and most of the remaining work is in regards to integrating the map into DCS World 2 (AI, effects, collisions, weather, etc.)
-The map is composed of three different levels of elevation mesh and texture detail. The highest detail is around the airbases and the lowest detail is along the outside perimeter of the map.
-An Alpha test version of the NTTR map will be made available for free to those customers that purchased the A-10C beta. For those that did not take part in the A-10C beta, the NTTR map price and availability is TBD
Some facts about the NTTR map: -Airfields include Nellis AFB, Groom Lake AFB, Creech AFB, and Las Vegas McCarren. At a later point we hope to also add Tonopah AFB.
I do hope that out of all this (roughly estimated) area, we get more than five airfields.
Hey, that's great! I recently got myself a new computer that's good enough to max out all the graphics settings, so hopefully by February the graphics will look even better again.
Any word on when they're doing a new damage system? I got very fed up yesterday after having to put +200 .50 cal rounds into a badly damaged MiG-15 to down it.
What's really troubling is that the NTTR map will be released as ALPHA in the next couple of months, depending on how debugging goes? Look at the first post in this thread and now this? Strange ...
I don't think we'll se a beta of DCS 2.0 before summer next year.
What's really troubling is that the NTTR map will be released as ALPHA in the next couple of months, depending on how debugging goes? Look at the first post in this thread and now this? Strange ...
I don't think we'll se a beta of DCS 2.0 before summer next year.
Drink every time ED says something is due at a "later date!"
(I'm not to be held responsible for any cases of alcohol poisoning...)
I kid, I kid. EDGE sounds great.
Originally Posted By: Genbrien
better not get anyone whinning about that ffs! execpt if tree's hit box is 3' wider than it should.... than you could whine
Actually, I think a good balance would to be to make the hit box a bit smaller than the visual model. This allows you to "brush" a tree-branch with a rotor or wing, and not instantly turn into a giant fire ball (looking at you, Arma 3).
Which is a well known fact - why do you mention it? From Wags post it sounds as if the map is released months after DCS2.0 only in alpha! stage, which I find strange when in 2013 Wags stated the map was nearly done.
Let's see what this delay means for all the other maps and the F-18 module.
Would love to see a Korea map for the Mig and Sabre
Not only that, I would really really love to fly the Korea wars helos over that map too (yeah, I know, it won't be so popular given that they were unarmed/lightly armed, but one can dream)
Imagine bailing out of your damaged F4U-4b into enemy territory and hunkering down until a helo piloted by another online player came to get you.
You can already walk around one bailed out in DCS so it's not impossible.
Don't forget you can also drive some of the vehicles:
I think it was more of an easter egg for sh*ts and grins; but still, it's pretty cool to have that functionality.
Ever since playing Jane's F-15E I've wanted this. Even tho you couldn't move your character, if you bailed out in range of a SAR helo it would scramble to pick you up, so you could continue your pilot's career (otherwise he was MIA).
Maybe if they add coop support for aircraft, then you could have human pilot/copilot, and be able to use the cargo spots (fingers crossed)
From a gameplay perspective...how cool would it be to get shot down, bailout, then have the mission prompt you for whether you'd like to attempt an extraction by flying the Huey or Mi-8 to pick up your own pilot (if you own that module).. That would be pretty cool.
I agree that it'd definitely be mega to have something like that. As much as I love the Huey, I'm struggling to find anything to do with it that's entertaining in the long run. If MP games would feature a human pilot bailing out and being in need of CSAR, I'd have a blast tuning the radio to the pilot's emergency beacon and riding in with door gunners blazing, unloading infantry and retrieving the pilot.
I agree that it'd definitely be mega to have something like that. As much as I love the Huey, I'm struggling to find anything to do with it that's entertaining in the long run. If MP games would feature a human pilot bailing out and being in need of CSAR, I'd have a blast tuning the radio to the pilot's emergency beacon and riding in with door gunners blazing, unloading infantry and retrieving the pilot.
Some squads have this procedure in DCS today, it was discussed in the last 476th podcast.
From a gameplay perspective...how cool would it be to get shot down, bailout, then have the mission prompt you for whether you'd like to attempt an extraction by flying the Huey or Mi-8 to pick up your own pilot (if you own that module).. That would be pretty cool.
After DCS 2.0 graphical updates are done hopefully we will see a new ATC, ground crew, ground procedures, dynamic campaign and more pilot details such as being court martialed for disobeying orders or being captured when ejecting behind enemy lines. In some older sims you can go KIA/MIA when ejecting depending on enemy/friendly area which is still better than not ejecting and definitely dying.
We have flown missions where shot-down player aircraft would spawn a radio emergency signal which Hueys could use to locate the pilot who would also be able to fire signal flares and talk to the Hueys on radio. Oh, and enemy troops would spawn and would advance on the pilot's location.
You won't have to pay for it, but you may have to pay for some of the content that makes use of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC they've stated that the existing Crimea map will make use of some of the features of EDGE, but only the maps developed specifically for that environment (NTTR, Hormuz, Normandy, etc.) will make use of it to the full extent. The aircraft modules you own will make full use of it, but it's the new maps that seem to get the lions share of the excitement (and for good reason), and they've not said anything about how much those will cost, other than NTTR being free for Beta A-10C buyers.
Note that I'm not being critical of that... I don't mind paying for new content, as that keeps it coming. Though if I were running the show I'd look at giving the maps away if you owned/purchased certain modules, since aircraft sales are the core of the business.
I'd love to see the new engine, maps, and campaigns released as a discounted package to bring in more people. Especially the WWII stuff... put out a $90 package next Summer that included all 4 or 5 WWII aircraft available at the time (5 might be wishful thinking) plus the Normandy map and a quality campaign, and you'd bring in more of the 1946 holdouts.
I just want to see 4 figures worth of people playing in my server browser again.
Digging up bones here, we all know how much lead time we were given for the black shark paid upgrade...........
I don't mind paying for it (if its reasonable) but I would hope ED have learnt a lesson and will engage us soon on expected prices for the fully developed new maps.
Keeping us the consumer in the loop, makes us the consumer happier to spend money. And I think this is where half the gripes come from.
Digging up bones here, we all know how much lead time we were given for the black shark paid upgrade...........
I don't mind paying for it (if its reasonable) but I would hope ED have learnt a lesson and will engage us soon on expected prices for the fully developed new maps.
Keeping us the consumer in the loop, makes us the consumer happier to spend money. And I think this is where half the gripes come from.
But in any event, I look forward to more info
Which through the years is the one biggest gripe about ED, and I keep people in the loop with my mods and stuff as while I do have "Death Star plans" overall I make it open so people can have some say, even if it means I have my plans and yours isn't included and may not be, etc. I know there's always proprietary information but sometimes...
Anyway that's some good stuff to know about Edge, and agree, more content is always better and quite frankly a new terrain is needed... the Caucauscus is fine but sometimes when you have to nudge yourself when flying the mountains means while I enjoy the terrain it has been awhile...
The EDGE Gfx Engine is part of DCSW2.0 and is free.
The only thing that is PDLC is the new maps for NTTR AND Hormuz, Eligible Users that pre ordered DCS A-10C will recieve NTTR for free.
Caucaus will be part of DCS2.0, but will not utilize some of the features of EDGE.
So when I bought my new car the salesperson showed me the key to it and all the cool things it did like unlock the car by being near it, had an LED light built in, and could pop the trunk. He also said it was free! Yup the key was free.
The car it opened and went with? That cost 27,000 dollars.
I am a huge fan of ED and DCS and work for a living to pay for my hobby. If I need the maps to utilize the features of Edge and the maps cost money, then Edge isn't free.
It's the shell game that causes the problems. People will always be crabby about having to pay for something, especially in an anonymous forum. Stop dancing around it. Tell us how much, and why, and build in quality, and players who are into it will happily purchase it.
Um, no. It's still free, because the current map will benefit from a host of improvements as well.
Ok fair enough. If Edge improves the current map in some way then yes, they can say they are giving us something for free. I can't argue with that. But hyping it feels really disingenuous. It's basically an update to something I already have. Doggedly telling me the update to my map is free is just off-putting in some way, and I am a fanboy! I mean it better make the Caucasus look fabulous, because if it just marginally improves the look of it, man I can hear it now.. Just seems like a zero sum way to go about the communication.
I think they would be better served by just staying away from the free tease. Just causes problems. The people you are placating with the word free are never happy anyway. I would rather hear them say 'We built Edge to take the game to the next level and the new maps will showcase this, and this is how much they cost. Then let the players discover that, hey, not only are the new maps cool but the old one looks great too! Winning in both directions.
I stopped buying modules because not so much cost or unwilling to support it, but like Arma 3 you can only have so much and need to learn so much as well... So the Hornet and Super Hornets will definitely be bought as well as the Hawk of course. But I just don't have the care for the WWII planes or even the helos anymore.
If you no longer enjoy a game and do not like a companies direction then by all means it's time to move on to something different. I have read a few Alpha-Mike-Foxtrot post in my time following DCS but have never really understood the point. Its been beaten to death on both forums that certain types of criticism is not tolerated by people affiliated with ED. At some point you have to realize that we are all just along for the ride and they are gonna do what they think is best for their company. if you don't like the direction it's time to just step away for awhile.
That being said I think ED has shown consistent (admittedly very slow) progress with edge. That's good enough for me and I'm one of the beta owners still waiting on my Nevada map back. Obviously delays suck the trick is not to let it bother you when they do.
If you no longer enjoy a game and do not like a companies direction then by all means it's time to move on to something different. I have read a few Alpha-Mike-Foxtrot post in my time following DCS but have never really understood the point. Its been beaten to death on both forums that certain types of criticism is not tolerated by people affiliated with ED. At some point you have to realize that we are all just along for the ride and they are gonna do what they think is best for their company. if you don't like the direction it's time to just step away for awhile.
That being said I think ED has shown consistent (admittedly very slow) progress with edge. That's good enough for me and I'm one of the beta owners still waiting on my Nevada map back. Obviously delays suck the trick is not to let it bother you when they do.
Yeah while I know what it's like (and also as a modder myself, not on that scale) so while I don't like the pace, I can understand on some degree, and that is that. I may not like it but I've learned to just deal with it as I got enough to worry about anyway, it'll come... sometime
Is the current DCS World terrain an upgraded iteration of the original Lock On (2003) terrain or was new terrain built for the 2008 release of the Black Shark? Whatever the case, we've been flying the terrain as a "base product" for either 11 years or 7 years. That is a pretty good run. So it is no wonder that it is taking time, effort, and resources to build a terrain utility that will ensure future usability for the next 10 years. What is so hard to understand about that? It takes work, it takes time, and in the meantime DCS World is not that bad at all. In the interim we've had continuously upgraded modules, new modules, improved gameplay, improved mission editor, and outside of the box products like Combined Arms. The continued updates show that EDGE is coming along and that it will be worth the wait to have a long standing terrain system that can and will be used for more diverse theaters.
Personally, I agree with those that don't want to purchase WW2 and Korea era props and jets. It isn't my thing. I don't mind the jet trainers, and stuff like the MiG-21 is just jaw dropping. And you can't really separate ED from the success of a developer like Leatherneck. If it weren't for ED, the Leatherneck product would have to exist is some other fashion (and probably less likely to happen), so I give ED credit for helping me enjoy the Leatherneck MiG-21 so much.
And color me crazy, but I still haven't gotten bored with the existing content. I haven't even come close to mastering the Ka-50, A-10C, or the MiG-21. Nor am I very proficient at the FC3 aircraft..and I haven't even flown all the included content (missions, campaigns, etc..).
TL;DR - :shrug: I'm excited about EDGE and I know ED will roll it out when it is ready. It represents the "Operating System" of DCS World for the next decade - so why not let them get it right?
Haven flown the A-10C a whopping seven weeks in my life it's not too hard (I just refuse to sit there and learn the startup sequence, it's scripted and that's it) to learn, as personally learning better Maverick shooting and GBu-12 so far were the hardest things to figure out (believe it or not) and just haven't taken the time to mess with the radio system, and sit there and get too in-depth. Not that I can't I just have a thing with "If at a basic level I can employ this aircraft" and continously come home then that's good for me too. The FC3 aircraft are pretty easy to learn compared to a Study Module (the Su-25T is only a pain to land) but for the most part simple but capable models to learn.
They put a lot of effort into it (which shows of course) but yeah... it's a complex system as well, so as said... just deal with it and it'll be released... sometime
Funny how people complain about Korea and WWII Relases for DCS, but no one said jack diddly when TK released the wright brothers version of strike fighters.
:whistling:
I have yet after 2-3 yrs to figure out what every knob in the A-10C does, just when I think Im proficient at somethin, I go online abd either learn a new method thats even better or get burned repratedly, showing how inefficient I actually was.
FC3 Jets are fun, and I fly them regularly now, But I simply want High Fidelity, Its just the way I am.
I have every module except 2 or 3, mainly due to budget changes recently as a result of personal events etc. But I'll likely get those soon as well.
I enjoy flying Mustangs vs the BF and FWs, and after that, switching to one of the aircraft to see how the other half lives (sorta speak).
I agree. Now I'll personally purchase any ASM/PFM level chopper and/or warbird anyone cares to release because I just love that stuff, but the rest I'm planning to get one by one whenever there's a sale on. Now I would like to support a dev like Leatherneck who obviously are a quality outfit and buy their MiG at full price, but what exactly is the point when I know I have neither the time nor the motivation to ever learn the bird thoroughly? Jet interceptors/fighters just aren't my thing and the money's a bit tight ATM too!
And yet at the same time I do feel a bit bad for not buying everything, because I'd really love to see this thing grow fast...
...and now I watched with audio on. I liked that DCS world 2 alpha release was soon ... even without Peally getting any checks.
Coop multiplayer cockpit might actually change our weekly DAYZ stint to a weekly F14D stint. The next day at work I will bore my co-workers silly going like this:
Some folks are wondering why EDGE is still in alpha. Yeah, it looks great, but is the functionality all there? Plenty of stuff still missing or broken is my guess.
Just hurry up and release it now, the wait didn't seem so bad before with just the odd bit of news and some screenshots but with every new video giving us a tantalising sneak peek the wait just seems worse as DCS 2.0 looks fantastic
Looks excellent and am excited to fly the new Nevada map in DCS World 2.0. Have been waiting a long time for this, but it looks like it has been worth the wait.
*shrug* I had the rug pulled out from me once already when they were firm on "by December" until November, then suddenly added another quarter or two. Hype buzzkilled.
I'm very much looking forward to Edge being released, but am okay with the delays as I know what DCS are going through. I have been developing private cloud File Sync & Share software for about 3.5 years now, and I am often promised date by my developers we're entering just entering beta any day now (when I can find some beta testers). I looked at an old schedule on the wall and the estimated completion date was 14 months ago and the previous release date was before my 22 month son was even born! Developing any software takes much longer than expected and cost much more too. Go easy on DCS I'm sure they're doing their best and they have a huge amount of pressure on them already.
How Long did it take for FSX/ESP to get DX11 Again? It took Lockheed and the Original ACES Staff from May 2009 to November 2013 to get DX11 Out the door; So 54 Months~ Give or Take.
ED First Debuted Images from Eagle Dynamics Terrain Engine in August 2010 ish, when DX11 was first mentioned.
So August 2010-> Estimated June 2015 is 58~ Months, Give or take.
Now you gotta consider Lockheed Martin likely has a LARGER Staff, Plus the Original ACES Studio Team (Or Most of It).
I'm in no big hurry, I have plenty of things to do in the meantime. I suggest that others do the same or just enjoy flying what you have. The video looks good and it's going to be fun flying there as I have flew over parts of Vegas in real life. I'm not holding my breath on it being done by June, but I'll be buying it when it is released.
I'm very much looking forward to Edge being released, but am okay with the delays as I know what DCS are going through. I have been developing private cloud File Sync & Share software for about 3.5 years now, and I am often promised date by my developers we're entering just entering beta any day now (when I can find some beta testers). I looked at an old schedule on the wall and the estimated completion date was 14 months ago and the previous release date was before my 22 month son was even born! Developing any software takes much longer than expected and cost much more too. Go easy on DCS I'm sure they're doing their best and they have a huge amount of pressure on them already.
I'm sorry but you can't just say that software development takes longer than expected and costs more too because that shows a lack of quality planning. If you think a particular project will take longer than expected in the first place then you don't give it a release date of 24 months thinking it will be closer to 48 months and you don't even start a project in the knowledge that it will cost more than you are estimating. There would be a lot of people losing their jobs through incompetence if that thought process was standard practice or funds simply wouldn't be released to start a project.
I'm in no hurry for ED to release x, y and z. I just wish for once they would stop dangling carrots only to then hide the carrot and start dangling a new one 6 months later whilst talking about release dates that they never seem to get close to. I don't buy the excuse that it's the community at fault 'demanding' information.....ED are the ones releasing information/dates/progress/videos (see the last one regarding the fly-through of the airbase for example) and this gets the community excited. The latest approximate date is that it's 3-6 months away.....so let's not forget that ED has issued this information to customers.
As the ever present "when" question... we estimate between March and June.
A four month wide estimate. Wags for all that is HOLY, so say "NFI"
would you rather go back to "sometime in 2015"
No matter what people won't be happy. If ED said it was going to be released tomorrow people would still complain that it wasn't released today.
I've been critical of ED a lot the last year but the simple fact is we can't change anything so let it be. At least they continue to evolve and don't charge us 60 dollars each year for basically the same game with a slightly different story (cough cough COD).
No matter what people won't be happy. If ED said it was going to be released tomorrow people would still complain that it wasn't released today.
I've been critical of ED a lot the last year but the simple fact is we can't change anything so let it be. At least they continue to evolve and don't charge us 60 dollars each year for basically the same game with a slightly different story (cough cough COD).
I don't care when they release it, but that's just BS false equivalency.
When you set a release date in late 2014 after previous delays, then in early 2015 tack on 6 more months and say you are in pre-freaking-alpha, that's not a case of "well, you just can't please anyone no matter what you do."
I don't care when they release it, but that's just BS false equivalency.
When you set a release date in late 2014 after previous delays, then in early 2015 tack on 6 more months and say you are in pre-freaking-alpha, that's not a case of "well, you just can't please anyone no matter what you do."
But what can you do about it other than get upset? Nothing
As the ever present "when" question... we estimate between March and June.
A four month wide estimate. Wags for all that is HOLY, so say "NFI"
would you rather go back to "sometime in 2015"
No matter what people won't be happy. If ED said it was going to be released tomorrow people would still complain that it wasn't released today.
I've been critical of ED a lot the last year but the simple fact is we can't change anything so let it be. At least they continue to evolve and don't charge us 60 dollars each year for basically the same game with a slightly different story (cough cough COD).
I don't care when they release it, but that's just BS false equivalency.
When you set a release date in late 2014 after previous delays, then in early 2015 tack on 6 more months and say you are in pre-freaking-alpha, that's not a case of "well, you just can't please anyone no matter what you do."
But what can you do about it other than get upset? Thank you for proving my point.
Maybe you missed the first sentence where I said "I don't care when they release it." So I'm not sure how it proves your point. It would be the opposite of your point in fact.
Your equivalency is silly. People are logical to comment about the continued delays. It's not equivalent to someone who'd complain if they promised tomorrow and didn't release today. That'd be illogical.
Jedi is right when he says the delay doesn't make sense. People are going to comment when something like that happens. That's not trivial.
Lockheed took 54 months, but DX10 was already in FSX. Going from 10 to 11 isn't nearly the same as 9 to 10.
There are many many games that have had DX10 support since 2007, when Vista was only one year old. Company of Heroes had it patched in then, for example. Bioshock. Crysis. Given that they had the information a year before Vista came out, still it took them all of two years.
Now as DX10 came out IN 2006, the very idea that you wait until 2010 to start working on DX11 makes no sense. What makes sense is ED was thinking about DX10, before 11 came out, but didn't announce it to US until 2010. Because there is no chance ED told us they were putting DX11 support in before they even started working on it, right?
It can't have been less than 6 months, which even so would've been wildly optimistic to tell us 6 months after they started, with apparently the original expectation that A-10 was going to be patched to DX11 not long after release.
Why did Lockheed take that long? Same reason it's taken ED this long. It's not that it's hard, it's that it's low priority. They've been prioritizing working on the things that will make them money directly over the things like EDGE that they can't charge for without breaking up the product and annoying a lot of people. You yourself mentioned all the DCS modules that have apparently or definitely vanished because of people not working on them enough.
The race is now on as to whether EDGE comes out before DX12 or not.
Whilst there is obviously a reason for EDGE, Nevada, Yada yada yada not being released yet....
..... It really is a pile of hot steaming brown stuff they ED can't be arsed or think that we the people can't handle a valid explanation for the protracted delays......
If ED had some competition, I would be a happy bunny.
Whilst there is obviously a reason for EDGE, Nevada, Yada yada yada not being released yet....
..... It really is a pile of hot steaming brown stuff they ED can't be arsed or think that we the people can't handle a valid explanation for the protracted delays......
If ED had some competition, I would be a happy bunny.
EDGE would likely be released before DoveTail puts out any form of competition.
outside of FSX, there isn't any Multi-Aircraft Study Sim Competition. (Well BMS, But only the F-16 is study level).
I agree these EDGE delays are really becoming disappointing, I've just decided not rely on any of their projected release dates. But if it's going to take until at least June, they should release a patch for the current version to fix some of these annoying bugs they say they have fixed in their internal version. Currently, we have a lot of beta modules with bugs and no fixes until EDGE/2.0 is released. I think I'll wait until EDGE/2.0 is released before I purchase any new modules.
Yes, that part is annoying. So many things have been tied to the EDGE/2.0 update that when it gets delayed it means so do so many other things we need.
I'm hoping for a sooner release of EDGE like everyone else. The sad part is I remember the day I bought A10 beta. And I bought that because of the developer's words about how they were working on dedicated server files for MP.
Now I'm sure everyone remembers how long ago it was A10 was in beta, but based on that alone, I'm not going to be holding my breath as to when EDGE is finally coming. To me, you have to have all the fundamentals in place to really make it grow into the "ultimate" sim. And one of those fundamentals that we all became used to from IL2 was the ability to host a massive MP session and having dedicated server software.
So I'll just continue to sit back and wait, and wait, and wait, year after year, in the hopes that one day they will make true on that promise way back when. We've got one of the best dedicated servers on the planet and it sucks we can't host DCS yet.
I just hope it all ends up sooner than later. Here's to hoping!
Yes, that part is annoying. So many things have been tied to the EDGE/2.0 update that when it gets delayed it means so do so many other things we need.
The Jedi Master
That's a catch 22: Developing an interim patch takes away dev resources that could (presumably) be advancing EDGE, so they delay 2.0 to make another 1.xx. Plus, that 1.xx is likely to produce it's own bugs and issues, which starts the whole cycle over again.
I think (hope...) that ED has simply decided to hoof it over the "hump" that is 2.0, and resume patching from there.
Yeah, I thought that back when we were at 1.2.8. Next stop, 2.0! Then new planes were coming out and they had to patch for those and...
The Jedi Master
I agree they released patches for each of the new betas and now they need patches/fixes and with 2.0 no where in sight, why not release a patch for the current version. I doubt everybody is working on 2.0 or this would delay it any further.
Brings up another frustrating point: to date, any product patches (ED or third party) are ED deployed as a bundle of fixes. I imagine this will be a pain point down the line for them as the catalog (hopefully) continues to broaden.
If this were any other developer, I'd say something like "I'm sure they thought that through, and have a well developed plan to handle that issue."
any product patches (ED or third party) are ED deployed as a bundle of fixes. I imagine this will be a pain point down the line for them as the catalog (hopefully) continues to broaden.
in 2 years it'll take over 30 minutes to read the change log
The Hornet, yeah. It won't make 2016 when they've still shown us so little. Look how much we've seen of EDGE and Nevada over the past two years and they're still not out. I do think we'll see both of those in less than two years, though.
I won't say exactly how much less, I'm leaving the spread at 0-23 months.
The Hornet, yeah. It won't make 2016 when they've still shown us so little. Look how much we've seen of EDGE and Nevada over the past two years and they're still not out. I do think we'll see both of those in less than two years, though.
I won't say exactly how much less, I'm leaving the spread at 0-23 months Years.
The Jedi Master
Fixed that for ya'
But I could maaaaayyyybeeee see open alpha in 2016.
Forgive me if this has been addressed before, But what requirements will DCS world 2 have? Will they be similar to current system requirements? Will world 2 be billed as a new sim or is it an update to World 1?
That's nothing new. It's the same old cockpit we've seen before, just from different angles.
Well they did include the Martin BAker seat and stick this time. Of coarse the meat and patatoes is in the avionics. I am waiting to see the progress that ED has made in that area like everyone else I'm sure
What I mean is it's the same cockpit images as last time.
But there was, like, some text in there too, dude. You think they just put out these newsletters - even if they're not, ahem, telling us anything, like *COUGH* - and then resume sitting on their bums playing gin rummy?
What I mean is it's the same cockpit images as last time.
But there was, like, some text in there too, dude. You think they just put out these newsletters - even if they're not, ahem, telling us anything, like *COUGH* - and then resume sitting on their bums playing gin rummy?
Quite. Why are they showing us the cockpit and not something more important, like the 3d model that's been in game for over a year! and the weapon models that have been in game for longer! IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
What I mean is it's the same cockpit images as last time.
But there was, like, some text in there too, dude. You think they just put out these newsletters - even if they're not, ahem, telling us anything, like *COUGH* - and then resume sitting on their bums playing gin rummy?
Quite. Why are they showing us the cockpit and not something more important, like the 3d model that's been in game for over a year! and the weapon models that have been in game for longer! IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
Should it have been released in January? Haven't heard of this. Anyway, it'll come when/if it comes.
It should have been released in 2014 if you believe the dates in the newsletters they send out.
I started buying DCS stuff when the A10 beta first came out. And the main reason I did was after reading a developer post talking about how they were working on dedicated server files.
Well, you know how long that's been now? 5 years or more and no such dedicated server files. Just don't hold your breath lol.
SimHQ/DCS Section has turned into the hater's fanclub, even when something along the lines of significant news is posted; the haters have to post their endless complaining about stuff in those threads too.
Once, Twice, Three times was enough, I'm tired of seeing the same BS and Complaining in every thread repeatedly by the same people.
EDGE has been talked about for how many years now? And no word on it since it fell through in January? And it's "BS and Complaining" to make puns about it? Sure, whatever. The "haters" (I recall you throwing a fit about being called fanboy btw) are kept in the dark, just like everyone else. I'm guessing you'll blame "us" for that while we're at it?
What kind of a hissy fit knee-jerk reaction is that?
Was that really warranted over some, in my eyes, light-hearted banter about an upgrade to a game that has been promised for years. Entire games have been developed in that time and we've been fed scraps of videos, screenshots and general information. By the time this is out, it will even be outdated if we look at the API its built on.
Not sure how anyone can be impressed with their pace or information flow.
SimHQ/DCS Section has turned into the hater's fanclub, even when something along the lines of significant news is posted; the haters have to post their endless complaining about stuff in those threads too.
Once, Twice, Three times was enough, I'm tired of seeing the same BS and Complaining in every thread repeatedly by the same people.
Enjoy being kept in the dark.
15,902 posts, (as of this writing), and that's what sent you over....
SimHQ/DCS Section has turned into the hater's fanclub, even when something along the lines of significant news is posted; the haters have to post their endless complaining about stuff in those threads too.
Once, Twice, Three times was enough, I'm tired of seeing the same BS and Complaining in every thread repeatedly by the same people.
SimHQ/DCS Section has turned into the hater's fanclub, even when something along the lines of significant news is posted; the haters have to post their endless complaining about stuff in those threads too.
Once, Twice, Three times was enough, I'm tired of seeing the same BS and Complaining in every thread repeatedly by the same people.
Enjoy being kept in the dark.
*Komemiute cleans the sprayed tea from screen and keyboard*
Hmmm...I was partly inclined to delete Skate's post so we don't have another SimHQ bashing party about it's rules, dragging yet another thread off topic for 12 pages of poo slinging.
Judging by the replies, I think most get the fact that it was pretty harmless "ribbing" about Edge being released and not some evil conspiracy.
What kind of a hissy fit knee-jerk reaction is that?
Was that really warranted over some, in my eyes, light-hearted banter about an upgrade to a game that has been promised for years. Entire games have been developed in that time and we've been fed scraps of videos, screenshots and general information. By the time this is out, it will even be outdated if we look at the API its built on.
Not sure how anyone can be impressed with their pace or information flow.
Agreed. And a flight sim can certainly benefit from DX12. By the time the non-beta version of 2.0 is out, DX12 will likely be out.
I've gotten bored of the current flyables and terrian. I need some new maps, general improvements, and more FC3 level/era planes. As much as I like the other stuff I hardly touch them.
EDGE is not a game, it's an engine. Most games nowadays license an engine from a studio that is dedicated to just licensing out their engines.
Fair point.
Just out of curiosity...once Edge is more or less fleshed out and stable...will upgrading the graphics portion of the engine to DX 12 require a lengthy overhaul? Or will it be considerably less time since most of the other groundwork is in place?
What kind of a hissy fit knee-jerk reaction is that?
Was that really warranted over some, in my eyes, light-hearted banter about an upgrade to a game that has been promised for years. Entire games have been developed in that time and we've been fed scraps of videos, screenshots and general information. By the time this is out, it will even be outdated if we look at the API its built on.
Not sure how anyone can be impressed with their pace or information flow.
Agreed. And a flight sim can certainly benefit from DX12. By the time the non-beta version of 2.0 is out, DX12 will likely be out.
I've gotten bored of the current flyables and terrain. I need some new maps, general improvements, and more FC3 level/era planes. As much as I like the other stuff I hardly touch them.
As a counter point, DX 9 has soldiered on for a long while now, due in part to how poorly DX10 was received. Point being that "newer" isn't always better. DX12 could wind up being gods gift to gamers, or it could be DX11 with some new shaders. The one advantage DX11 brings to the table, is it's a known quantity. That said, If I were ED, I'd always trail by at least one generation of DX as:
1. You'll have a larger hardware support footprint (the latest DX versions often require the newest GPUs)
2. There's bound to be more bugs and issues in the latest DX, versus one that's had time to mature.
3. You're likely to find a larger pool of talent familer with yesteryears DX, and a larger support base that's had time to work out all the bottle necks and common issues.
What DirectX 12 brings over 11 or in fact, the other versions is going to be huge. I certainly wouldn't downplay the potential, as the API finally allows ALL the CPUs to communicate with the GPU, something the PC has been desperately missing since our CPUs got increasingly more cores. Multi-threaded development has always been a nightmare and a massive Achilles-heel of the PC.
Especially for the simulator crowd, it's going to be one of the most exciting performance related things we've seen in years.
Of course it requires adjustment, ironing out bugs and hardware support but we've had to deal with that with every DirectX iteration and it usually comes in due time, if the iteration is actually relevant, unlike DirectX 10. However there's all the reasons to be excited and positive.
A game engine is a nebulous thing. None are plug-and-play, every Unreal-engined game out there has significant differences from each other as the developer takes it and alters it to fit the game they're making.
That said, there are only a limited number of well-used ones and they hang around a long time. Unreal 3 has been around forever now. Frostbite is also pretty old, but it's getting updated often. Chrome isn't widely used, but it's on #5 now. id is on Tech Engine 5 too, IIRC. I forget what the one used for Fallout/Elder Scrolls is called, but it's been evolving as well.
The point is more that brand new engines aren't as common as a rewrite of an existing one to add new tech and improve performance of the old. AFAIK, EDGE is the same way. It's a rewrite of what we have now, which was rewritten numerous times over the life of ED. Yet it seems its development has been far more torturous due to the amount of time taken. That could be false, though, as I fully expect that EDGE has NOT been in continual development since before A-10s release, but instead has been shelved numerous times along the way as other things have come up pushing its release to the right.
EDGE has likely been delayed more than once to work on something that didn't even exist as a plan when it was started. It's how they've prioritized their projects.
I'm guessing since EDGE and DCS 2.0 are free upgrades, ED is not in as much of a rush to get it out as some would believe. They'll get it out when they can. It probably has been sidelined more then once to build something they can make some money off of.
Just out of curiosity...once Edge is more or less fleshed out and stable...will upgrading the graphics portion of the engine to DX 12 require a lengthy overhaul? Or will it be considerably less time since most of the other groundwork is in place?
IIRC Microsoft claims that the amount of work required is minimal, but who knows what that means. I doubt that even the guys that are currently programming it can answer that with absolute certainty. I doubt even more that they'll have a budget lying around for it.
Since the graphics engine in itself is single threaded, i'm not convinced that there would be all that much gain from moving to DX12.
DirectX11 -> DirectX12 is the removal of most of the API specific generic commands and re-coding for the GPU instructions to be sent directly to the GPU at a lower level and bypass the Safety of the DirectX driver layer.
Thus removing the strain from the DX Process and CPU, so the GPU can render as fast as it can process the direct commands without having to wait for the CPU to process the DirectX Commands.
DX12 removes the CPU bottleneck by removing the DirectX API from most of the equations.
So instead of programming commands and having DirectX API sort and forward them to the GPU, you are programming commands that are sent diectly to the GPU.
Its faster, but the smallest coding/programming mistake can cause bigger crashes, where DX11's API would compensate for some of the mistakes on its own.
Aka Programming Direct to Metal, Low Level Coding, etc.
DX12 Benefits AMD more than anything due to AMD CPU performance; remove that bottle neck and program directly to the GPU is how games are reporting 1000% FPS increases.
It was my very basic understanding, that DirectX was created because sending instructions directly to the hardware was very "dicey" and had a bunch of compatibility issues. Basically, won't programmers now have to "sort" the instructions for all types of graphics cards themselves instead of having DirectX do it for them? It might not be as big of a deal now since it's just down to AMD and Nvidia…back in the earlier days there where more flavors of GPU's.
As far as Directx12 for DCS…since it's a Windows 10 exclusive…and it seems about 50% of simmers/gamers don't plan on switching from W7 for the foreseeable future…it can probably wait for a couple years.
I think the reasoning is that when D3D was created there was a lot of flux in the brand-new 3d acceleration field. You had numerous upstarts coming and going.
Now the field has matured down to nvidia, AMD, and 3rd-place performer but numerically significant Intel. In order to make it easier on the programmers, they have made a lot of concessions so that it's not that different to tell a Geforce or a Radeon how to do something. In other words, D3D filled a need at the time, but the market has worked to the point that now D3D is more a burden than a help. With D3D stuff will work on all cards, but it might be 2x faster on this brand than that because of how shader X is implemented. With direct hardware access, the devs can tweak their way around it.
It was my very basic understanding, that DirectX was created because sending instructions directly to the hardware was very "dicey" and had a bunch of compatibility issues. Basically, won't programmers now have to "sort" the instructions for all types of graphics cards themselves instead of having DirectX do it for them? It might not be as big of a deal now since it's just down to AMD and Nvidia…back in the earlier days there where more flavors of GPU's.
As far as Directx12 for DCS…since it's a Windows 10 exclusive…and it seems about 50% of simmers/gamers don't plan on switching from W7 for the foreseeable future…it can probably wait for a couple years.
IMO
The exclusivity is negated by the fact that Windows 10 will be a free upgrade.
As far as what DX12 actually brings to the table; we'll see. Note that many of these tests are ideal case scenarios, where the changes in the API are shown in the best light. Absolutely nothing wrong with that; but it has to be taken into account. I am, however, very hopeful. It's about time we squeeze console level relative performance out of the PC platform.
Here is a great post for anyone to read more on the subject of how bloated and convoluted the driver and API process has become until this point:
The exclusivity is negated by the fact that Windows 10 will be a free upgrade.
Well…sort of.
If you go for the free upgrade…it invalidates your Windows 7 serial number…so there is no going back if you don't like it. I'm not really ready to give up my Windows 7 and the ability to go back on the gamble that I will love W10. Many others feel the same. If W10 really is all that and more…I will just buy it and keep my Windows 7 still available since I do some retro simming/gaming where W7 works well.
I can't fault anyone that goes for the free deal for the first year…pretty smart of MS to do it like that. Even though they aren't really advertising that you can't ever go back.
I'm guessing since EDGE and DCS 2.0 are free upgrades, ED is not in as much of a rush to get it out as some would believe. They'll get it out when they can. It probably has been sidelined more then once to build something they can make some money off of.
On the contrary, since it's free they should be trying to release it as fast as they can so that they can concentrate on their not free stuff.
I can't fault anyone that goes for the free deal for the first year…pretty smart of MS to do it like that. Even though they aren't really advertising that you can't ever go back.
Perhaps my google-fu is weak, but I can't find anything indicating this either. source?
The exclusivity is negated by the fact that Windows 10 will be a free upgrade.
Well…sort of.
If you go for the free upgrade…it invalidates your Windows 7 serial number…so there is no going back if you don't like it
Please provide proof of this.
As my Win7 to Win10 Beta copy has a BIG option to revert back to Windows 7 in a few places.
Looks like that's my bad Skate. I just spent 20mins looking through the discussion we had about Windows 10 a couple months ago where I could have swore someone posted a link that discussed that. Well…I guess there is no reason not to give it a try.
Hell…supposedly they are even going to let folks with pirated copies of Windows upgrade to Windows 10 for free…legally!
I'm just a humble signal processing developer so what the heck do i know (not a lot about graphics processing), but to me this sounds like small studios that may not be able to afford the manpower or know how to do a lot of low level GPU hacking might be forced to either stick to 3 or 4 pre-existing engines (well yeah they are inexpensive, but can they span the full range of what game developers need? Think flight sims and their peculiar requirements) or not benefit at all and stick to DX11.
As far as ED is concerned, it all seems a bit meh. Color me surprised if they can actually reap a lot of benefit from DX12.
DCS has been working closely with Oculus while developing the EDGE graphic engine to work in VR. Oculus will no doubt be looking very closely at DX12, as VR will need games to run at very high frames and hertz. I would imagine that if it were possible, Oculus may have some suggestions for DCS to run with Oculus on some features of a hybrid DX12. I believe other sims have been able to use some features of DX10 in a DX9 game engine, or actually select DX9 or DX10 when running Cliffs of Dover.
What DirectX 12 brings over 11 or in fact, the other versions is going to be huge. I certainly wouldn't downplay the potential, as the API finally allows ALL the CPUs to communicate with the GPU, something the PC has been desperately missing since our CPUs got increasingly more cores. Multi-threaded development has always been a nightmare and a massive Achilles-heel of the PC.
Especially for the simulator crowd, it's going to be one of the most exciting performance related things we've seen in years.
Of course it requires adjustment, ironing out bugs and hardware support but we've had to deal with that with every DirectX iteration and it usually comes in due time, if the iteration is actually relevant, unlike DirectX 10. However there's all the reasons to be excited and positive.
Not trying to beat down on ED again or anything, but look how long it's taken just to adapt to 11.
Then you have FSX, still stuck in DX9 land, (and P3D has it's licenese hoopla to deal with.)
Strike fighters...is that even still be worked on by TW anymore? (to their credit though, they did jump to DX10 with SF2 NA, but that was well after 11's release, IIRC)
IL2 BoS might have a shot, but I suspect the dev team has other issues to look to.
Can't think of anything else on the horizon that's not vaporware at this point. (Jet Thunder, anyone?)
The point being, lots of games might take advantage of DX12 soon, but flight sims will likely be a generation behind for a while. Seems that's just the reality of the situation.
Not trying to beat down on ED again or anything, but look how long it's taken just to adapt to 11.
Then you have FSX, still stuck in DX9 land, (and P3D has it's licenese hoopla to deal with.)
Strike fighters...is that even still be worked on by TW anymore? (to their credit though, they did jump to DX10 with SF2 NA, but that was well after 11's release, IIRC)
IL2 BoS might have a shot, but I suspect the dev team has other issues to look to.
Can't think of anything else on the horizon that's not vaporware at this point. (Jet Thunder, anyone?)
The point being, lots of games might take advantage of DX12 soon, but flight sims will likely be a generation behind for a while. Seems that's just the reality of the situation.
Oh, I don't think you should look at this as an upgrade for current simulators. This is, like all DirectX iterations, about what's down the line. Like, Bohemia Interactive recently showed real excitement about DirectX 12, which is most likely going to come good in ArmA 4. It will be a massive upgrade for ArmA in general, probably that one game where DirectX 12 is going to be close to magical.
So think of this as really exciting for the upcoming generation of simulator products, because developers will finally have full-on access to the CPU which is by far the biggest problem with most simulator products today in regards to performance.
As mentioned, DirectX 12 is supposedly easier to implement compared to previous iterations but it's irrelevant if the game isn't coded to take advantage of the new features. So still, current generation products won't be the target demographic for DirectX 12.
This is off topic and may be a stupid question, but why was reflective-as-hell aluminum popular in the 40s and 50s?
I like to use aluminum finish because it looks good and because it challenging to make - from most photos it looks like WWII and Korean War Mustangs were usually painted in a shade of gray, "reflective-as-hell aluminum" is an airshow thing and it looks great
Ah fair enough, all the explanations make some sense. Paint is indeed heavy, and chrome does look good if you're going for a sports car look. I just figured it was a standard military thing and wondered how good the benefits were to risk such a reflective surface.
Not trying to beat down on ED again or anything, but look how long it's taken just to adapt to 11.
Then you have FSX, still stuck in DX9 land, (and P3D has it's licenese hoopla to deal with.)
Strike fighters...is that even still be worked on by TW anymore? (to their credit though, they did jump to DX10 with SF2 NA, but that was well after 11's release, IIRC)
IL2 BoS might have a shot, but I suspect the dev team has other issues to look to.
Can't think of anything else on the horizon that's not vaporware at this point. (Jet Thunder, anyone?)
The point being, lots of games might take advantage of DX12 soon, but flight sims will likely be a generation behind for a while. Seems that's just the reality of the situation.
Oh, I don't think you should look at this as an upgrade for current simulators. This is, like all DirectX iterations, about what's down the line. Like, Bohemia Interactive recently showed real excitement about DirectX 12, which is most likely going to come good in ArmA 4. It will be a massive upgrade for ArmA in general, probably that one game where DirectX 12 is going to be close to magical.
So think of this as really exciting for the upcoming generation of simulator products, because developers will finally have full-on access to the CPU which is by far the biggest problem with most simulator products today in regards to performance.
As mentioned, DirectX 12 is supposedly easier to implement compared to previous iterations but it's irrelevant if the game isn't coded to take advantage of the new features. So still, current generation products won't be the target demographic for DirectX 12.
I hope your right, but it feels like we heard similar tales of how game-changing (literally) DX10 would be. Theres a reason DX9 still persists to this day...
I'm just a humble signal processing developer so what the heck do i know (not a lot about graphics processing), but to me this sounds like small studios that may not be able to afford the manpower or know how to do a lot of low level GPU hacking might be forced to either stick to 3 or 4 pre-existing engines (well yeah they are inexpensive, but can they span the full range of what game developers need? Think flight sims and their peculiar requirements) or not benefit at all and stick to DX11.
As far as ED is concerned, it all seems a bit meh. Color me surprised if they can actually reap a lot of benefit from DX12.
Most smaller developers stick to pre-built engines anyways. Unity and Unreal 4 being the real kings right now. The latter, Unreal 4, you have full source access, so you can branch the engine and adapt it for your own needs. You can look at how RSI branched CryEngine to improve floating point precision in order for the engine to become viable for large scale simulation. The same can be done in e.g. Unreal.
As far as the API goes however, there is still a level of abstraction. It's far less than before though and thus puts much more responsibility on the shoulders of the developer. The black box that used to be DX is now fully open and it will be ruthless for some.
A very good change, all in all.
EDIT: Another engine coming (by all accounts) fairly soon is Source 2, based on Vulkan. I have no fears for small indie developers.
Ah fair enough, all the explanations make some sense. Paint is indeed heavy, and chrome does look good if you're going for a sports car look. I just figured it was a standard military thing and wondered how good the benefits were to risk such a reflective surface.
I always felt that a bit of camouflage was better than no camouflage at all
I hope your right, but it feels like we heard similar tales of how game-changing (literally) DX10 would be. Theres a reason DX9 still persists to this day...
Except, DirectX 10 was faux hype generated by Crytek and Microsoft leading up to the release of the first Crysis, which all turned out to be a big PR disaster. There was nothing groundbreaking in DirectX 10. There is actually something groundbreaking in DirectX 12, that isn't being led by some BS hype train. The fact that developers on PC will finally get full access to the CPU is fantastic, something we've desperately needed for YEARS and also the reason why AMD developed their very own API.
I understand the pessimism but this one is solid, DirectX 12 is going to unlock a lot of performance that has been hidden away by hard-to-access CPU threads and general multi-threaded coding. Now owning 6 and 8 core CPUs can yield significant performance gains, rather than just being a waste.
Normally a DirectX iteration isn't something I'd get even remotely excited about but this one, this one I'm genuinely excited for.
the White House announced new restrictions on exports of “high-technology” items and services to Russia and Crimea.
Quote:
Thus far, no guidance has been issued on the specific goods and services that will be considered high-technology items subject to the new restrictions. DDTC and BIS also have not announced any criteria that can be used to identify specific transactions that are likely to “contribute to Russia’s military capabilities.”
Just gonna roll back a few pages to touch on something here:
Originally Posted By: Force10
It was my very basic understanding, that DirectX was created because sending instructions directly to the hardware was very "dicey" and had a bunch of compatibility issues. Basically, won't programmers now have to "sort" the instructions for all types of graphics cards themselves instead of having DirectX do it for them? It might not be as big of a deal now since it's just down to AMD and Nvidia…back in the earlier days there where more flavors of GPU's.
As far as Directx12 for DCS…since it's a Windows 10 exclusive…and it seems about 50% of simmers/gamers don't plan on switching from W7 for the foreseeable future…it can probably wait for a couple years.
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
I think the reasoning is that when D3D was created there was a lot of flux in the brand-new 3d acceleration field. You had numerous upstarts coming and going.
Now the field has matured down to nvidia, AMD, and 3rd-place performer but numerically significant Intel. In order to make it easier on the programmers, they have made a lot of concessions so that it's not that different to tell a Geforce or a Radeon how to do something. In other words, D3D filled a need at the time, but the market has worked to the point that now D3D is more a burden than a help. With D3D stuff will work on all cards, but it might be 2x faster on this brand than that because of how shader X is implemented. With direct hardware access, the devs can tweak their way around it.
The early 3D accelerator market was sheer chaos, with competing chipset manufacturers all over the place. Let me just rattle off all the vendor-specific APIs of the day I can recall, and this probably isn't even all of them:
-3dfx Glide (the only one most of you will even remember) -PowerVR PowerSGL -Matrox MSI -S3 S3D/MeTaL -ATI 3D CIF
THAT is why Direct3D and OpenGL came about in the first place, so developers didn't have to rewrite their render code for every single graphics card vendor and their radically different chipset architectures.
With just NVIDIA, AMD and Intel to worry about in today's market, and Intel surprisingly not being a complete joke in graphics performance starting with the HD 3000, it should be much easier for graphics programmers to tweak accordingly. It's not like they have to reprogram everything in GPU-specific assembly; that's why these low-level APIs are still APIs.
There's one more big change in game development from the 3D accelerator days: back then, most developers wrote their own engine for each new game, but nowadays, your typical game is going to be running on Unity, Unreal Engine 4 or CryENGINE 3. To a lesser extent, it could be id Tech 5, whatever iteration of Gamebryo Bethesda's using now or one of the more obscure in-house engines like Chrome or Diesel, let alone highly specialized flight sim engines.
There are entire development teams dedicated to just improving those engines so the other people trying to make games with them don't have to worry about the nitty-gritty details of graphics programming. Let them worry about how to make your game run efficiently on a wide range of hardware while you worry about just making the game!
In a way, I suppose that's just shifting the burden of abstraction to the game engine developers...
Delays in EDGE I doubt it, EDs future, since we don't know the new restrictions, no one knows yet. I might if the State department puts restrictions in place that don't allow ED to export the aircraft that simulate american a/c
A lot of those screenshots just look blurred. Impossible to tell whether that's down to crappy resampling, crappy jpeg compression, or because they were like that originally.
I'm guessing it's down to stuff being WIP. A lot of terrain looks like that right now if you get far enough up. Looks pretty good though overall, looking forward to new maps.
I wasn't paying attention the whole time, but at some point in the flight I took this video with my phone. I just know it is somewhere between Arizona and New Mexico.
Those pics looks fine to me as far as geometry goes. Shadow levels, amount of atmospheric haze, etc can easily be adjusted by post processing effects and other such settings so I'm not too worried about all that.
The weird part of those pics is that Outerra looks much better than that and has for several years and in Outerra the whole world looks like that
Outerra looks like it does because all of the detail is fake.
It uses a perlin-based noise to generate low-level terrain detail from a very rough (probably ASTER) DEM model. There are merits to both approaches, and ideally the future wild yield a fusion of the two.
A lot of those screenshots just look blurred. Impossible to tell whether that's down to crappy resampling, crappy jpeg compression, or because they were like that originally.
Let's just hope it's not the latter.
I agree. The screen shots we have seen so far have not looked impressive. Very washed out and blurry. The mountains in the distance look 2D to me. Overall, it just looks very awkward. Detail in the distance is lost; even more so than the current terrian. FSX scenery looks much more impressive. Seeing that the terrian will be payware in DCS as well I would hope it looks somewhat on par.
I have a feeling the enhancements in DCS 2 just won't be as good as we had all hoped. No multi core support, and DX12 (which would probably benefit DCS a good amount) will be out by the time DCS gets a DX11 engine.
Western US isn't exactly great to look at from the air. I've flown to Vegas a few times, always looks like that with some color variation based on time of day.
Looks washed out for me, but let's wait for the release (lol) before judging.
IMHO, the best terrain in a flight sim is the one on WOFF - never saw something so detailed (few FSX terrains surpasses it)... you can feel the distances involved, I play with 1440p supersampled 4x and it's just beatiful to see.
I can't even imagine what WOFF terrain would look like on a modern engine, with fancy shading and some nice atmospheric effects.
On 21 June at 1300 Pacific Standard Time, I will be running a live Twitch stream of me flying over the Nevada Test and Training Range map using DCS World 2. If there are any particular places over the map or planes you would like to see, let me know.
I hope you can all make it and see some live gameplay.
yes, this particular developer takes pride in meeting its predicted release dates, two weeks it is. Very exiting.
Wasn't the first post in this thread from late 2012? I think they are a little behind on predicted release dates. Maybe they can get this DX-11 product (EDGE) on the street before DX-12 is official in August.
Despite our best efforts over the past six months, DCS World 2 has not yet achieved the quality level and features that we require for an open alpha release. Rather than release an alpha version that is potentially a disappointment for many users, we feel it best to keep it in the oven a bit longer to bake it more thoroughly. We fully realize that this is disappointing for some, but I can assure you that it pales in in comparison to our own. No one wishes to release our new baby out into the world more than us.
Nope, I got the newsletter 10 mins ago via email too.....
The 'still to do' list is longer than it was 6 months ago with many entries still looking as if there hasn't been any progress. I swear ED are in reverse.
I seem to remember Wags? stating that the release was in the hands of their testers in the last newsletter or update.....so that was complete and utter rubbish, certainly in view of testing it as a releasable alpha anyway.
You know, I think they don't know what the definition of "alpha" is. I've seen, and played, betas in worse shape than this so-called pre-alpha footage looks.
Wait...Betas? Make that gold releases!
I'm sure they're staying away from showing the problems in the videos, but honestly, it seems like the path from public alpha to final release will be like 3 days by the time they're satisfied.
I can't agree with that. Leaving EDGE aside (if we can for just one moment) there was quite a bit more to the newsletter.
EDIT:- quite possibly my sarcasm detector is broken - SimHQ really gives it a workout.
Quote:
DCS World 2 Status Despite our best efforts over the past six months, DCS World 2 has not yet achieved the quality level and features that we require for an open alpha release. Rather than release an alpha version that is potentially a disappointment for many users, we feel it best to keep it in the oven a bit longer to bake it more thoroughly. We fully realize that this is disappointing for some, but I can assure you that it pales in in comparison to our own. No one wishes to release our new baby out into the world more than us. Some of the biggest remaining items that we need to address before an open alpha include: New multiplayer GUI system that allows multiple players in the same aircraft and multiple player aircraft in the same flight. This is critical for multi-seat aircraft like the L-39, UH-1H, Hawk, etc. Completing the move to use of a single executable. This will allow us to do long-desired features such as a satellite view in the Mission Editor, 3D objects in the Encyclopedia and Mission Editor, faster mission loading times, and a more stable product. With the move to DX11, we are continuing to find ways to increase performance. This is even more important with the coming wave of VR gear that demands extremely high framerates. We wish to improve several more of the effects before the open alpha. Although we have new smoke, contrails, lighting, shadow, and missile trail effects, there are more we wish to improve like better explosions and over-wing vapor. Lastly, there are a few remaining crash bugs we need to resolve. So, although we have been making tremendous progress in developing DCS World 2, there are a few more items that still need to be addressed in order to meet our quality standards. We can only ask for patience because we believe that it will all be worth the wait and DCS World 2 will usher in a new chapter in the world of Digital Combat Simulator. DCS: Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) Status
While much of the team has been hard at work on getting DCS World 2 ready, our map team and engineers have been busy improving the NTTR map and fixing bugs. While we have made the significant step of moving the map into full testing, there are several important areas that need to be addressed before we can release it as an open alpha to everyone. Some of these items include: Functional Air Traffic Control Ground unit road movement Performance improvements Static object issues TACAN and ILS A couple of crash situations When the map is available as an open Alpha, our plan is to still make this map available for free to those that purchased A-10C Warthog while it was in beta (prior to 21 February 2011). It will also be available for purchase from our e-shop for $39.99 USD. DCS WWII
The Spitfire has begun internal testing within DCS World. The Spitfire has progressed past the P-47 due to the level of info in ED's hands for the Spitfire while research continues on the P-47. The model has been added to DCS World internally and testing of the Merlin 66's performance has started; next will be the prop performance. The Spitfire version will be an early production Mark IXc LF with clipped wings. As a possible bonus, it's planned (but subject to change) to have the option to select the long wing version; however, you will lose the benefit of the clipped version and its roll rate. MiG-29 for Flaming Cliffs 3
To round out the collection of updated aircraft for Flaming Cliffs 3, the team is working on updating the MiG-29. This will include both a new, high-resolution 6 DOF cockpit and a new external model. After the F-15C, Su-27 and Su-33 Professional Flight Models (PFM) are complete, we also plan a PFM for the MiG-29. The MiG-29 will have the same level of cockpit systems fidelity as the other Flaming Cliffs aircraft. This will be a free update for Flaming Cliffs 3 owners.
DCS: L-39 Albatros
The L-39C Albatros is making good progress with new cockpit systems being integrated on almost a daily basis. The new L-39C external model is also nearing completion (the L-39ZA is further behind) as well as the Professional Flight Model (PFM).
DCS: F/A-18C Hornet Work continues on the building the Hornet cockpit and air-to-surface radar technology. Most of the recent cockpit work has involved texturing and animation of cockpit elements
Announcement announcement announcement. Can us to announce everything
What counts are the facts.
Fair enough. Can't argue with that.
Nate
Posted By:
Re: DCS: EDGE - 06/17/1505:46 PM
And for that you have my respect Nate You're here the only associate DCS, which is not trolling.And you respect the opinion of others without flame.Cheers
Oh, I'm sure it's coming. I'm just not sure when they'll be satisfied. I've no doubt 50% of us would be thrilled with it as it stands now and wait patiently for them to fix the kinks and add the missing bits as they go. The other 50% could keep on with the old version until it's done if they don't want the hassle. Yet ED seems to act like the driver who won't go 1 sliver over 55 after getting a speeding ticket a year earlier.
The outside image of ED is of a group of perfectionists. Naturally they fail to achieve it, as does everyone, but they set their bar so high for themselves that they can't help but miss it. Meanwhile the rest of us have to sit and wait while they come to grips with their struggle.
Here are the two things listed as the current showstoppers in the newsletter:
Quote:
New multiplayer GUI system that allows multiple players in the same aircraft and multiple player aircraft in the same flight. This is critical for multi-seat aircraft like the L-39, UH-1H, Hawk, etc. Completing the move to use of a single executable. This will allow us to do long-desired features such as a satellite view in the Mission Editor, 3D objects in the Encyclopedia and Mission Editor, faster mission loading times, and a more stable product.
What I see are issues with brand new netcode and an integrated 64 bit EXE. If we didn't have issues with these, I would expect that testing wasn't thorough, as these tend to have insidious bugs that may only be seen on a variety of systems, or by people who will use the mission builder in ways not expected by the devs. I don't know the extent of the bugs, nor the effort required to find them and fix them, so there's no point in predicting the amount of slip.
EDGE is only mentioned in regards to improvements, not fixes, and these can certainly be worked in parallel with the bigger issues. So why is an EDGE thread all of a sudden a hit piece by the more predictable members of the peanut gallery?
I get what you're saying JM, but you are odds with many others on this forum who decry the release of software in Beta form.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Nate
Well, I do agree with complaints about betas with no firm completion dates in sight. There seems to be a lack of urgency in some quarters once the customers' money has been received to actually finish a product. A big slew of Early Access titles on Steam have forums full of such complaints. However, if the two choices are "get it in Q1 in beta or in Q4 on release", I would just as soon get it in Q1 and not wait till Q4...with the understanding that the final is coming out in Q4 either way.
Now if you're told it will be finished in Q4, but is available in Q1 in beta form, and you decide to get the beta early, and it's not up to your standard, you can just STFU. That's being stupid. You can wait till it's done if you don't want the beta issues. No one forced you. It's like buying a house near the airport that's been there for 50 years then calling to complain about the noise.
Oh, I'm sure it's coming. I'm just not sure when they'll be satisfied. I've no doubt 50% of us would be thrilled with it as it stands now and wait patiently for them to fix the kinks and add the missing bits as they go. The other 50% could keep on with the old version until it's done if they don't want the hassle. Yet ED seems to act like the driver who won't go 1 sliver over 55 after getting a speeding ticket a year earlier.
The outside image of ED is of a group of perfectionists. Naturally they fail to achieve it, as does everyone, but they set their bar so high for themselves that they can't help but miss it. Meanwhile the rest of us have to sit and wait while they come to grips with their struggle.
I think the OpenBeta branch should always be in effect. Unless ED is working on a version between current release build and DCSW2, the OpenBeta should be whatever is next even if DCSW2 crashes for 100% of OpenBeta users.
Calling out a member and stating what you think they are going to say before they say anything doesn't fly. Don't make it personal and stick to commenting on the content of the actual posted opinions.
Bottom line is that in Late 13 they said they may have to delay Edge until early 14. In late 14 they said the same about early 15. Now they have similar verbiage as the last couple of years. As someone noted earlier it looks like maybe a 16 release now. If there weren't so many loyal customers biting their tongues and patiently waiting all this time it would be pretty funny. Maybe ED is run by the same people responsible for the F-35 fiasco.
I just saw the DCS Newsletter in my inbox. All I can say is LOL. Didn't even get past the first paragraph. What a farce. Been waiting to buy Nevada for like three years now. Much more excited about the Arma 3 expansion revealed yesterday. At least I know it will be released, and I'll be able to enjoy it before I die of old age.
Ah, yeah... Riiiight.... Never-ada That June letter was a pure kick in the teeth. I still love this Sim but the Black Sea map, is how old now? It looks like... FSX! Sorry... I said it....Ok, ITS OLD. Think I go hide till ED gets their stuff together. My Straights of Hormuz will be running on a different rig than the one I am about to build... I give it 2 years minimum.
So how many people upgraded their computer in late 12 when the original release was scheduled and are now looking at another upgrade? The true sad part is that the normal lifespan of a gaming computer has passed during this fiasco.
So how many people upgraded their computer in late 12 when the original release was scheduled and are now looking at another upgrade? The true sad part is that the normal lifespan of a gaming computer has passed during this fiasco.
I've had my gaming rig for over 5 years, and the only upgrade other than hard drive space has been a graphics card update from a 460 to a 660. I should be able to handle DCSW2 (as should your specs), but just the same I tend to hold off on hardware until I know I need it.
So how many people upgraded their computer in late 12 when the original release was scheduled and are now looking at another upgrade? The true sad part is that the normal lifespan of a gaming computer has passed during this fiasco.
I've had my gaming rig for over 5 years, and the only upgrade other than hard drive space has been a graphics card update from a 460 to a 660. I should be able to handle DCSW2 (as should your specs), but just the same I tend to hold off on hardware until I know I need it.
Some update regularly very few years. Some update in anticipation of an upcoming title. A 5 year old machine will usually run the latest in medium settings. Mine was just updated about 6 months ago so I'm set for a while. The last rig was in 12.
It's certainly beautiful as expected given the static screens we'd seen before the live stream.
I do wonder how long it's going to take given Matt explained some of the problems with Comms and the bits and pieces from the last newsletter. It's all irrelevant really, hopefully the next statement will be 'its ready when its ready' but how much of a stalling effect will this have on every other module patch, terrain and environment that is currently dependent on Edge 2? Scary to think when we're actually going to see this.
I missed the stream.. can somebody list up what has been shown on the stream event? Any new info on the EDGE? especially gameplay perspective since we all now its graphic gonna be outstanding level.
Apparently he plans to do a next few stream sessions, more gameplay/combat oriented. Today's one was just some flying showoff with a few missiles and flares fired against drone targets, so You didn't miss all that much. Some low flying over Vegas as well. Looked promising though, at least from visual quality vs performance point of view.
I missed the stream.. can somebody list up what has been shown on the stream event? Any new info on the EDGE? especially gameplay perspective since we all now its graphic gonna be outstanding level.
So how many people upgraded their computer in late 12 when the original release was scheduled and are now looking at another upgrade? The true sad part is that the normal lifespan of a gaming computer has passed during this fiasco.
I've had my gaming rig for over 5 years, and the only upgrade other than hard drive space has been a graphics card update from a 460 to a 660. I should be able to handle DCSW2 (as should your specs), but just the same I tend to hold off on hardware until I know I need it.
if the GPU memory is fast and the card requires that molex PSU, it usually is enough to run well most games and sims.
His vid is mainly.just him going over what edge will bring. And mostly just screenshot.s and like 30 seconds total of actual video. Nothing impressive. And defiantly not the entire stream.
I agree if the delays continue.
