|
Sauer posted:The BMS team jealously guards it. Everytime they've been encouraged to open source it they claim community fragmentation from many competing forks as the death of the game. I'm trying to imagine the utter comedy that would erupt if someone leaked the BMS source code. They have no legal or moral leg to stand on in that regard.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
Sauer posted:The BMS team jealously guards it. Everytime they've been encouraged to open source it they claim community fragmentation from many competing forks as the death of the game. Knowing how overly dramatic the flight sim community can be, I suspected this might be the case. It's too bad it wasn't open source from the start like FS2Open, I think there could be an interesting community around improving the game like they've done there. I know open source can be seen as a panacea, but developing the game in the open would have some benefits. I don't frequent the BMS community so I don't know how receptive the developers are to feedback, so I don't want it to seem like I'm taking a total poo poo on them, but I just don't see any reason why a non-commercial game (built off leaked source code at that) needs to be developed in a closed manner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
hannibal posted:Knowing how overly dramatic the flight sim community can be, I suspected this might be the case. It's too bad it wasn't open source from the start like FS2Open, I think there could be an interesting community around improving the game like they've done there. I know open source can be seen as a panacea, but developing the game in the open would have some benefits. I don't frequent the BMS community so I don't know how receptive the developers are to feedback, so I don't want it to seem like I'm taking a total poo poo on them, but I just don't see any reason why a non-commercial game (built off leaked source code at that) needs to be developed in a closed manner. It's because they're a bunch of overprotective spergs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Going by the state of some *cough* other open source projects, I can entirely understand why they want to keep their own development effort restricted to a more or less tight group of competent programmers. But that's really not an argument against open source because it doesn't follow that they'd have to change their way of doing things if they released the source.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
Eh, I don't like it but I'll forgive them since they're the only combat flight sim dev that can release content without ridiculous drama over delays, upcoming content, etc. Which is ironic considering its free.
Lockmart Lawndart fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
kordansk posted:It's because they're a bunch of overprotective spergs. NOONE ELSE SHARES OUR VISION
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
God, I haven't played DCS for well over a year, so figured I'd re-install it on my new 6700k/980ti rig. What god drat "world" should I install 1.2, 1.5 beta or 2.0 alpha?  Also, I am seriously looking at buying a 34" curved monitor as a late Christmas present to myself. Is there anything I should do with my 27" other than sell it for whatever I can get out of it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
If you already own or want to buy and play around on the Nellis map then install 2.0. Its the Beta version for that map. Otherwise install 1.5. I can't imagine to many people are still playing with 1.2 anymore. Even the grognardiest of the hyper spurgs who hate change have switched to 1.5.
Sauer fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
The website isn't clear, to install 1.5 do I need to install 1.2 first? Thanks again
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
No I don't think so. I installed it using only the web installer they provide with no prior 1.2 install. If you have 1.2 install I believe their installer will grab files it can use from that to reduce the download size.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
slidebite posted:The website isn't clear, to install 1.5 do I need to install 1.2 first? Thanks again 1.2, 1.5, and 2.0 are all completely separate installations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
OK thanks guys
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Let's pretend that I'll have free time. Does BMS or DCS support 2560x1080?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
How does the DCS P51D compare to the two German WWII Birds in terms of simulation quality and content? I was thinking about buying it while the sale is on and just noticed that it is 20 Bucks cheaper than the BF109 and FW190. Edit: Vahakyla posted:Let's pretend that I'll have free time. Does BMS or DCS support 2560x1080? I just checked and the highest available resolution in DCS is 1920x1080, so unless there is some config file wizardry that lets you set higher resolutions I don't think it is supported. Vivick fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
DCS works just fine on my 2560x1600, but I don't know if 21:9 aspect is supported.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Let's pretend that I'll have free time. Does BMS or DCS support 2560x1080? Remind me on Steam chat next and I'll check. I just bought a monitor of that resolution but haven't tried DCS yet. I imagine it should work fine, since DCS can run triplehead resolutions which stretch much wider than 2560.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
I'm running 3440x1440 and it looks phenomenal. It filled in the aspect ratio on its own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Vivick posted:How does the DCS P51D compare to the two German WWII Birds in terms of simulation quality and content? I was thinking about buying it while the sale is on and just noticed that it is 20 Bucks cheaper than the BF109 and FW190. The Good: From reading around the Mustang seems to be pretty accurate according to actual pilots who fly it for real. It is really fun to fly and has made my stall recovery a lot better... The 109 especially is a terror to dogfight against, so much so that there are a number of complaints about its rate of climb. The cannon will really mess you up. I find landing the thing a hell of a challenge and it is very nimble. I've checked out the Dogs of War server which specialize in the WWII aircraft, but I fly poo poo compared to most of them so gave up on multiplayer. The training missions that come with the planes are a great way to while away a few evenings, BUT... The Bad: All the WWII fighters in DCS suffer from the lack of things to do with them, there are not a lot of fan made missions to fly. Ground attack in the P51 for example is very frustrating against anything other than soft skinned trucks set up using the mission editor, even BTR's will make minced meat of you. Though I do enjoy diving down on A10's and loving up their engines using the Mustang when messing about. I still fly around in the Mustang a lot, it really feels like you are flying a legend, but since getting IL-2 1946 I play that more. It may be not as pretty, but there is a lot more fun to be had as a game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
immelman posted:The Good: Ok thanks alot, I'll propably get it tomorrow then  I'm aware that there isn't much content for any of the WWII Planes, I was just worried that its a simplified simulation or something because of the price difference to other modules, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Vivick posted:I just checked and the highest available resolution in DCS is 1920x1080, so unless there is some config file wizardry that lets you set higher resolutions I don't think it is supported. I'm running DCS at 1920x1200. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Vivick posted:Ok thanks alot, I'll propably get it tomorrow then If you want to fly around sometime, let me know. Practicing with another pilot could be a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
DCS should support nearly any resolution without trouble. Its one of the few games that doesn't poop itself with more than one monitor in play either. Its my opinion that if your company is making aircraft for an era other than "that time Georgia and Russia got into a spat" you should also have to make some other content to go with it. Some flak 60s and 88s and some cruddy 1940 era tanks would go a long way. Sauer fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Vivick posted:Ok thanks alot, I'll propably get it tomorrow then P-51 (and the free TF-51) are both full-up DCS simulations. P-51 is probably cheaper just because it's quite a bit older than the 109 or 190.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Sauer posted:DCS should support nearly any resolution without trouble. Its one of the few games that doesn't poop itself with more than one monitor in play either. Yeah. The type of poo poo DCS lets you do with scripting is insane, especially around displays and things. On an unrelated note, how can you tell what version is installed? Is it the version listed underneath each plane on the main screen? EDIT: Yes, that's how. Macintosh HD fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:I'm running DCS at 1920x1200. No Idea then, I just checked again and it tops out at 1920x1080 for me (DCS 1.5) v v. May be it doesn't let you go higher than the native resolution of your Monitor?immelman posted:If you want to fly around sometime, let me know. Practicing with another pilot could be a lot of fun. Thanks! I will propably fly alone at first, I'm a fairly bad pilot and you propably don't want to watch me crash on takeoff 10 times in a row  . But as soon as I got the basics down I'm definitely down for some multiplayer fun. Are you guys still hanging out in Mumble channel postet in the OP?Edit: vvv Ok, that makes sense then, sorry for the confusion
Vivick fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
Games very rarely if ever let you exceed your native resolution unless you're using Nvidia DSR or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
Did anyone pick up the DCS Mirage 2000 that can share their thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Snaxx posted:Did anyone pick up the DCS Mirage 2000 that can share their thoughts? Things that are incomplete or missing that I have noticed Major -INS system is currently not simulated -Some radar functionality (manual dish elevation, degrees of scan) -A2A refueling, you can latch onto the tanker but not take on fuel -Super 530D performance seems to need work but that's not in RAZBAMS hands -Radar slewing Magic 2 seeker head isn't implemented yet Minor -Some exterior lights have issues -Some interior buttons and switches are not animated or can be clicked when the safety cover is closed It's not really that strong in BVR since it's max SARH missile load is 2x Super 530D which are (hopefully) underperforming right now, My longest range kill against a mig-23 size target was 12nm but most shots at that range miss. WVR is a far different story and I would say it is the most capable DCS fighter in a 1v1 engagement even with it's small missile load, The twin cannons just shred poo poo when you get the hand of them. Overall it's not as polished as the mig21 was at release but it's nothing like the perpetually in limbo 3rd party trainers, and if it matters to you almost every question thread on the official forums has a developer response in it so I feel really good about the purchase. edit: I'll try and upload a video tonight of a low altitude high speed bombing run with mk-82 snake eyes because it now my new favorite thing in dcs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Is there a list of the finished, high-quality modules? What can stand alongside the A-10C?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
I think the MiG-21 and the Mirage are the only other fully-modeled (6DOF, clickable cockpit) "modern" combat planes in DCS right now. For older aircraft, there are the MiG-15 and Sabre, and the WW2 planes - P-51, BF 109 and FW 190. For helos, you have the Huey, Mi-8 and Ka-50. Beyond those, there are a couple of jet trainers and the free P-51 trainer. I think that's everything besides the lower-fidelity planes from Flaming Cliffs 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
The 1.5.2 update has gone public for DCS World. Hurray. It feels like there is a lot more depth in the visuals, which will hopefully be polished with the extra 2.0 changes, getting rid of cartoon clouds. The frame rate is drastically higher - like wow, I can turn on 3 screens and it still runs. The main menu has a lot of input lag, which could be due to it rendering that dopey cloud scene, but the GUI is definitely better and it loads way faster into simulation. It might be worth picking a static module wallpaper to alleviate this. There are a few more options in the system settings screen, like depth of field - which tank the frame rate and really only look good in 3rd person camera modes for movie effect. Anti-aliasing seem as though it isn't working to well - particularly noticeable with cockpit shadows. The main thing I was looking forward to was the dynamic scaling of far off models so that you can actually see them when they are within what should be visible range - but that doesn't seem to be working or maybe I have some bad configurations. Is it the "Model Enlargement" option on the gameplay settings screen? How does field of view effect it? I still can't see a B52 at 20-30km but I can spot a passenger jet landing at the airport which is 30km away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
Yeah, the "Model Enlargement" option on the gameplay screen is the one you're looking for. They're still changing the system significantly with almost every patch, so expect it to get better (or maybe worse) in the future. At the moment, the main problem is that visibility of distant aircraft using the model enlargement option is HIGHLY dependent on resolution - the lower the resolution, the larger the aircraft will appear. Someone found a fix which makes the sizing consistent, you can download it here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2598044#post2598044 . If you're running at any modern resolution you will probably find that spotting becomes noticeably easier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
Thanks. I love the mig21, but have a hard time finding uses for it given its unique era. Sounds like the same deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
DCs planes in general are great if you like multiplayer shoot-planes. If you want actual missions and stuff less so. edit: for what its worth, they are making WW2 content for missions... it's just mostly for the Normandy map or whatever. Shanakin fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
The thing that is most appealing to me about dcs is the mission editor. If you can't find any missions out there you like just make one. It's easy enough to get into and complex enough for you to add variety and interesting elements. Especially if you get into scripting though that isn't required.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
If you do want to get into scripting, the language they use is Lua which is a really good programming language. Easy to learn and super powerful if you really want to nerd out on it. Unfortunately ED doesn't really document the scripting system and its API very well and they sometimes break functions or create unintended side effects. They do get fixed but good luck finding those fixes in the changelogs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Snaxx posted:Thanks. I love the mig21, but have a hard time finding uses for it given its unique era. Sounds like the same deal. Its found an opponent with the mirage. Theres a few mig 21 vs mirage servers that are a hoot. Also, there's always shooting down eagles online if you hate yourself and want to spend time learning to dodge amraams. But the occasional butthurt makes it worth it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Bunch of pretty screenshots of DCS. http://imgur.com/a/ahe69
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Bunch of pretty screenshots of DCS. Wow, mine does not look like that... Is that from the 2.0 Beta or have is that from the new 1.5 patch? I should really play around with my graphics settings some more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
Looks like he tilt shifted some of those images to give them the illusion of a much shallower depth of field. Looks like 1.5 otherwise with DOF and HDR turned on in the options. Says they're edited in the title of that album.
Sauer fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:42
|
|