Trying to get back into the saddle....

After installing DCS world and having only the stock FC3 I believe missions, campaigns, planes etc. I have decided I have enough free time to try and learn this sim. So here are my questions.

1. Since I come from the WWII prop plane era of sims, jets are new to me so Im going to start with the SU-25T missions training and campaign. Is this the plane to start with or should I stick to another aircraft?

2. I installed JSGME to maybe start looking at mods, I have installed sweetfx into it and its showing on my JSGME so I assume all is well after starting game runs well etc. Any other mods I should take a look at?

3. After I become proficient with flying and all, what are the plans for upcoming modules for DCS? I was really interested in the Sabre but without a Korean type campaign I will pass. Sorry I don't have time for much multiplayer or I would concider it again.

Any other hints/tips would be great. Hope to get to multiplayer someday but not until I can fly and land a plane on a regular basis

First be sure you have FC3. It is not stock with DCS World. DCS World is free and comes with the SU-25T attack jet and the TF-51 prop trainer. You must purchase FC3 from the DCS store page and install it into your DCS world just as you would any other module.

If you do have FC3 from experience I would start with the Su-25A as your first plane. Here is my list of aircraft to train on in order and why -

SU 25A - less complex systems, advanced flight model, lots of weapons to employ, easy to configure for controls.

SU-25T - Builds on the A model - adds a HUD system, adds a screen targeting system for missiles (Skval/Vikhr), more buttons to configure.

A-10A - American way of doing things, Advanced flight model, American weapons, screen targeting for Mavericks.


Here is a link for a thread that has more info on this topic -


http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4070534/A_little_step-by-step_guide_ho#Post4070534


Also check out Robert Sogomonian on youtube for the best videos on the SU-25T and some Su-25A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-55eDVnu5o&list=PLB_U6g70AVu0Kpv03pgyHOWp4_nAOPdwJ


And Bunyap for just a whole host of goodness on DCS configuration, flying, and missions. Bunyap will make you want to buy all the modules -

https://www.youtube.com/user/4023446


Good luck!

Right now, I'd say take a look at what VEAO and LNS have got cooking. LNS has released an awesome MiG-21. VEAO has a Hawk trainer out, and with more planes from different eras on the way. Steer way clear of BST, they've gotten into an obvious habit of releasing "Beta" modules and then doing little to almost no follow up work on them. ED doesn't have much interesting right now. A bunch of WW2 birds that just aren't realistic due to limitations as to what DCS can model, and an F/A-18C that we'll be lucky to see before 2020 at this rate.

With regards to what?

Several extremely seasoned warbird pilots have assess that the P-51D is the most realistic depiction in a sim they have ever seen.

The DCS AI / DM limitations and problems is what he's talking about. Where we differ, however, is that I believe someone's going to work on them eventually, whereas he seemingly doesn't...

If you want to fly choppers they're the only game in town ATM, like it or not.

I know of the 3 (?) pilots who fly P-51s today, albeit somewhat modified due to some restrictions about the rear fuel tank. That it has one of the best FMs around is something I'm perfectly willing to believe.

But what would the verdict be if they put actual WW2 pilots in front of the PC and let them see an AI that can rum amok with WEP and tries to fly their props like 4th gen fighters, and a DM that allows both players and AI to absorb damage that would down even B-17s?


Last time I checked, the FM problem was acknowledged, and it didn't sound optimistic. IIRC the reason the AI doesn't use AFM is because it would have an extreme performance hit. And the DM I can only recall being acknowledged once via a moderator several months ago, and since then there's been nothing.

I'm not saying these things are impossible to fix, I'm saying that they've clearly stated that these will be tough to fix. And I just don't think it's a smart thing to spend money and effort on the WW2 project before fixing those things. Start by developing a good foundation before you go on to developing what will need that base, instead of first setting about the project and leaving the foundation of it all to an undetermined date in the future. Is that gonna become the next EDGE?

The Su-25T at the start is a pain to fly as far as landing anyway, as it took me about three weeks to get it "right" for landing without popping the tires out. Remember that landing it requires you to know how to operate the parachute as you will need it. Matter of fact earlier this year (or last year really) I did a simple review for it and should help you along:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dcs-su-25t-review-eric-johnson?trk=mp-reader-card

No, it has been acknowledged by Yo-Yo that the damage model needs work. Now in case you don't know, Yo-Yo is not a moderator.

What's your point? That all statements where people recall incorrectly should be left uncorrected?

You're hardly correcting anything given that 'Yo-Yo' is part of the ED team and not a moderator, therefore Scrim's statement holds more weight anyway. If anything, you're just being a bit pedantic.

I sometimes wonder if any of the ED team actually view related posts on other forums and face-palm because ED moderators aren't actually helping their cause one iota. Don't get me wrong, some helpful information is great, as are tips and sources of information......but when things get defensive the ED moderators can often make the company look quite juvenile and silly given that they are representing them.

Indeed the moderation on the ED forums shows a lack of respect for the customers. I have had many discussions erased because [edited] got his panties in a bunch. I called him a [edited] in a pm which got me banned. No big deal but the guy is hurting the companies public image.


Lets leave the personal aspect out of it when it comes to current members here.

You know what's wrong with this community? Not blaming anyone personally, but had it been me who was expressing doubts about ED's way of acknowledging flaws, I would've _thanked_ the person telling me this particular problem at least has been noted. Alas, no: people got cheeky instead, and yet another moronic crap-slinging match is in the making.

I don't know. Maybe I should delete my long-standing account here, because what this board has become makes me want to RETCH.

.

About 5 posts further up, Scrim told everyone that the problems had been acknowledged but no-one had heard anything more about them. Isn't that the part that someone is telling everyone that the problem has been noted?.....that post was also the one giving information to the original OP about where the land lies with current modules!

The only thing I can see within this thread are a couple of people disagreeing with Scrim, and attempting to 'put him right' by saying that the info didn't come from a moderator as Scrim recalled but from someone on ED's actual team. Yet in doing so are making a mountain out a molehill.

The information that Scrim was putting across is that there are a couple of major areas that still haven't been addressed, it's largely irrelevant where the information actually came from given that it is confirmed as being acknowledged from ED's end.......can it not be left there? - unless of course anyone else has some updated information with regards when or if these areas are going to be addressed because it may also help the OP with his decision in where to start when getting back into the saddle.

I'm not sure what you're expecting. The OP asked for advice on modules to get, and advice was given on both positives and negatives. IMO...scrim gave pretty good advice as far as the WWII planes go...the OP is only interested in single player right now and the AI where it stands now might not be the best choice.

SimHQ isn't really a storefront to "push" products on members. Both side are allowed to be expressed and I would like to think that helps someone like the OP make a more informed decision on what to buy.

The "debating" is just a by-product of people with different opinions.

Debate is beneficial, differing opinions are vital, and disagreement is the JET-A of all progress. Nothing wrong with _any_ of that.

What we're seeing here, however, is personal animosity and lack of manners and common courtesy. Hence all these FUBAR-fests and folks crapping all over the place like demented monkeys. None of which, BTW, does any _more_ good for SimHQ's reputation than some of our members allegedly do for ED's.

Thanks for the tips guys, yes I am more into single player at the moment and having a heck of a time with the SU-25. Didn't know it had no hud except for the bombsight/gun reticle. Made me think I had a key mapped wrong

I am debating on the Sabre.....would love a Korea style campaign but I know there are none available. Cant wait to see where this sim goes next. So many different modules Id love to buy, only time for one at the moment.

This is why I don't have any WWII birds or any helos but the Ka-50...because I don't feel like DCS World, as it now stands, is worthwhile for meaningful combat with them. Yes, you can learn the systems and fly around and fire weapons at things that don't shoot back, but there's little they can do in the existing sim to be really worthwhile.
The F-86 I got only because it was on sale and is theoretically good against the slow planes and helos in the sim. The MiG-15 makes it a bit more worthwhile, a Korean terrain with era-appropriate ground targets and ships and AI planes (B-29s, P-80s, Yaks, Panthers, etc) would make it a no-brainer.



The Jedi Master

Jedi hits the nail on the head.......some people claim that DCS for some platforms is a great screenshot generator and procedure simulator.

Whilst I don't go that far myself I can see why they claim that, especially for the platforms that don't really have a place in the combat environment that DCS offers at the moment. The difficulty/complexity is highly rewarding up to a point when it all starts coming together but ultimately, you're flying in an environment that just doesn't make sense and it can be a massive hit to the immersion given the high fidelity of everything else around it.

I think if the original poster (LC) was prepared to go payware after learning with the SU25 then the obvious choice would either be the Shark or the A10C (pick them up in a sale for next to nothing) as they offer plenty of complex systems to learn and the procedures and characteristics will undoubtedly help with pretty much every other platform out there when something that he really wants becomes available. They're probably the best match for the environment at the moment and with Nevada around the (albeit neverending corner ) the A10C will have some new and interesting areas to explore and destroy.

Those are the best high-end modules for DCS World as it is now, yes, but I think FC3 gives the best value because of the variety. If you want to move mud, you can. If you want to do some intercepts or dogfighting, you can do that too. The planes are also far easier to learn (although not really easier to master) for when you're starting out.

I like the MiG-21 quite a bit, too, but I'm not sure it makes as much sense for starting out with the high-fi modules.



The Jedi Master

Also, looking at overclocking my CPU, and adding some RAM since I only have 4 GB, will that improve my loading times much? As it stands now, it takes about 4 minutes to load a mission I created with only one plane, one cargo ship, and 6 T-55s.

Seems in game during a campaign mission loads at the same speed. Once in-game I have decent fps, just takes a while to get there.

I'm not sure overclocking and more ram would help load times much. Do you have an old 5400rpm hard drive by any chance? That might be the bigger culprit.

If you post your full specs we might have a better idea.

Loading time is slightly affected by RAM and CPU but far more by hard drive speed. An old small drive will be slower than a newer 7200rpm drive which is in turn slower than an SSD.

It's all about where the bottleneck is. If your HD activity light works ok, watch it when you load up. If the light is spending most of its time on or flickering, and rarely off, then your hard drive is the bottleneck. If the drive light is only on part of the time and is usually dark during loading, then you know the CPU and RAM are holding it back. To a lesser extent the amount of RAM on the video card will affect this depending on your detail levels, but it's pretty minor overall.



The Jedi Master

hmm, I have a 500GB ST3500418AS ATA hard drive. Everything I find searching it says its a 7200 rpm drive, haven't found one that's not anyhow. Would you like me to post the dxdialog here to see if anyone can find anything bottlenecking my system?

That is an older 7200 RPM, 500 GB HDD -- a good drive to be sure. I've run about 6 of these models over the past ~5 years, and no problems. But I did upgrade to Samsung 250s and that cut mission load times by about half. Your four minute load time is pretty long IMO. Send me a link to your mission and I'll time it on my machine.

WC

A full DX dialog might not be necessary right now. If you gave us just the highlights so we know how old your components are might be a good start.

Operating system 32 bit or 64 bit?
Processor?
How much Ram?

ok system specs are:
Intel core i5 760 @ 2.80 GHz (4 cpu) ~2.8 GHz
running 64 bit version
4 MB RAM (got more RAM arriving today sometime to 12 MB)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460

@wrecking crew - Sorry, how do I send you a link to a mission? Just send you the mission file I created?

Send me a Private Message and we can get the file transferred.

WC

I think you'll see a nice improvement with the RAM alone.

4GB with a 64-bit OS is only gonna leave about 2GB for DCS.

The problem with 64-bit is it really makes sense only if you have more than 4GB. Everything takes more space at 64-bit, so if for example Windows itself and a couple of applications use 3.0GB in 32-bit windows, in 64-bit you might find those same programs now take closer to 4GB. So while you gain headroom with 64-bit, you also need more space for it. I think 4GB is fine for 32-bit, but when you go to 64 you really need 8GB minimum.



The Jedi Master

Update:

New RAM came in just an hour ago and I installed it, next to my old RAM so in theory I was going to have 12 GB. Boot up computer and..........nothing. Red light by the RAM slots and nothing on the monitor. Pull out the new RAM and put old back in its place, boot up and......nothing. Ok, now Im starting to worry. What I thought was maybe wrong RAM isn't so after the old stuff doesn't work again. So out of running out of things to try I install the new RAM I got by itself and bingo. Starts up fine and I get a boost in loading times for the game as well.

So, why aren't the old sticks working? Incompatible with the new? And why wouldn't it boot after I just left it as is with the old configuration?

Without knowing what your motherboard is…my guess is it needs to run in "dual channel" mode. Basically…ram is sold in matched pairs for uses like this so the ram timings and speed are a match so they are able to work in dual channel mode.

If the ram you bought came in 2 sticks…most motherboards are set up so the dual channel slots are every other one…sometimes they are color coded. Basically…you put one stick in the first slot…then skip a slot and put the second stick in the third slot. Mixing and matching new memory with old will probably create a conflict.

The possible reason your old memory won't work by itself is you didn't put it back in the same slot/slots it was in originally? Or the mixing of memory possibly buggered things temporarily and you need to do a CMOS reset…basically pull the power and battery on the motherboard to reset to stock settings. Doesn't sound like this is necessary since you're up and running though.

Let me know if this sounds feasible.

This is just from my limited knowledge…maybe someone else can offer more info.

I initially pulled the old RAM out, and places the new sticks where the old were. Slots one and 3. Then places the old into slots 2 and 4. No picture on monitor. Then took all out and replaced old sticks back to original slots, 1 and 3. Still no picture. Pulled all out again and just placed new sticks into slots 1 and 3 and that worked. Still have old sticks out of computer for fear of it not working again.

Sorry, just placed all my specs in my signature like most other people if that helps at all. Thanks all again for the help.

Maybe this will help?

I did see that online. I think it will kick the mobo into the bios screen. Which from there I would be just as lost as I was when it wasn't working lol. I think later tonight I might try to attach the old ram with the new and see what happens and if need be, hit that button.

Maybe I think the old ram is different speed? Newer ram faster so could that be an issue?

For example New ram is DDR3-1866. old looks to be DDR3-1600. Again not good with computers at all so I think maybe that is the issue of them not working together?

I think with most newer motherboards these days mixing speeds is OK if they are in the correct dual channel slots together.

I found this:



At least it sounds like it won't kick you to the BIOS and expect you to do any configuring…it's done automatically.

Here's a link to an older video



Hope it works for you!

…one more thing…lol.

You might find that even if you get your new and old memory to work together…the 12gb total memory might be slower then just leaving the 8gb of new memory. I ran into that once. I think the system defaults to the slower speed memory for all the modules to work together. Some memory bandwidth tests before and after will tell you more.