It’ll probably run better than FSX.
In their last hour long YouTube Q&A the XPlane developers said that a lot of what’s holding them back is legacy architectural issues that they want to rework. My impression is that at least some of it is that their old code base doesn’t properly take advantage of multicore processors. Also the DCS guys say they’ve unlocked 50% FPS improvements by reworking some of their previous code.
Given the fact that the big three civilian flight sims (FSX, XPlane, Prepare3D) are all on very old legacy code, I can imagine that a new sim developed from the ground up for multicore processors and modern GPUs might actually have lighter hardware requirements and still provide a better simulation and much better graphics.
Oh man, flying over the pyramids AND flying above a flock of flamingos. This + Cyberpunk is making this the best E3 in recent history that I can remember.
There’s no way it’s going to look as good as that on my PC at anything above a slideshow. By the time I dial down the graphics it’ll probably look more like this:
(ignore the helicopter UI)
Ahhhhh good old Tomahawk on the Speccy. :)
It was the only Google Image search that had vaguely pyramid shapes in it, and about as much effort as I was willing to put in for a stupid joke.
But yeah, I loved that game.
Agreed. And in my case, they announced a new Tales Of… game too, which looks amazing, so I’m pretty happy with this years’ E3.
Not across the board. Just VR.
And I don’t think it was code. It was their landscape data or something, hence why they’re fixing maps now?
Based on what DCS is all about these days – releasing half-finished DLC aircraft – I’m pretty sure all that’s left of Eagle Dynamics are a few content creators and Lua scripters. The hardcore programmers had to have left for greener pastures long ago.
Anyone signing up for “exclusive behind-the-scenes updates from developers and partners, gain access to preview builds, and advanced content updates before the general public”?
I of course signed up for that on day 1! :-)
In the meantime, Aerosoft has released Lukla for Aerofly FS2, which should add some fun and challenging flights to the sim. If you’ve never watched video of flights into Lukla, it’s an insane airport. Lots of other challenging airports in the package, too. I think I’m going to pick it up to add a bit more to do in AF2, since it’s such a beautiful sim in VR.
It’s a bit cheaper at SimMarket, around $28 US at current exchange rates.
What’s your axe to grind with DCS? And I don’t mean to be provocative but you do seem… well… just a wee bit grumpy whenever they come up. :)
Reasonable question. I really didn’t have that big of a hard-on for DCS until recently, when ALL BECAME REVEALED TO MY EYES, or something.
Eagle Dynamics development model seems focused now on maintaining a high state of hype (and cash flow) from its limited user base by spamming half-finished aircraft. These aircraft then take forever to “complete”, because the devs are focused on the next half-finished aircraft.
Meanwhile, ED continues to add chrome to the ancient LOMAC engine, but habitually neglects key (to some) features like: an actual AI that pretends to play the same game humans do; a true multi-threaded engine, etc. etc. etc.
In effect, DCS is a air combat ArmA 3, and like ArmA 3, suffers from myriad jank and WTF issues that the devs are either uninterested or incapable of fixing.
But some folks enjoy it and what the hell, follow your bliss.
Yes I get where you are coming from. I also miss the good ol’ days of flight sims that were somehow game + sim rather than just sim. That said, the economics of the niche market might dictate their approach.
For mine I am prepared to put up with the jank and sit in a real cockpit and bomb stuff. That’s enough game for me. So I suppose I am in the same camp as @schurem in that regard.
But I get your point. Grump away old man! Meanwhile am going to fly that half finished hornet into a glossy unoptimised sunset and somehow manage to enjoy it all. And - oh - yeah - will play some woff for the 90’s simmer in me as well.
I also get where @scharmers is coming from, but I don’t agree with it.
Sim fans have been their own worst enemy for a long time, actively hating on titles that don’t satisfy their own narrow criteria of worthiness, serving only to fragment an already niche genre. Been around for years, contributing to companies like ED embracing the early access business model in order to stay in business.
They are all doing that now. The WoFF folks have a “janky” early access product as well for WW2.
There is plenty of polished content for DCS, and some excellent campaigns providing more than enough hours of smooth game-play to jusitfy “complete” status. I might recommend he pick up the A-10C and the Enemy Within 3 campaign during the summer sale happening now to see what I mean. Frames are good too with a 970 or above, so not sure what multi-threaded has to do with anything.
I get that learning super detailed cockpits, modern flight procedures / flight models, and weapons in VR isn’t everyone’s bag. No doubt DCS has reached classic status in that regard, although time will tell.
Consistently bashing a sim for what it doesn’t do as good as some other sim is tiring though. It would be like chiming in with “but you can’t shoot shit so screw this game” every time somebody mentioned a Civ sim.
Running out of time for Deadstick to meet the 2Q19 EA release date. Given the radio silence since they announced that, I presume it’s getting pushed back.
Its a small outfit. (one man show even?) So he gets plenty leeway from me. Im just happy where hes going.
I’m certainly willing to give them/him time, I just wish they’d communicate even a little bit. If nothing else, it’s really terrible PR for the game, as the press have nothing to give coverage about.
On Friday they said “very, very soon”, whatever that might mean. And this was on their Discord server, rather than an announcement or anything.
Also I’m pretty sure that’s just regarding the closed beta. So yeah, I wouldn’t expect a general early access release any time soon.