DCS capability questionaire

Vintage realism

Moderator: Board of Directors

IronJockel
Posts: 699
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 pm

Re: DCS capability questionaire

Post by IronJockel » Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:26 pm

Nitrous wrote:
Dickie wrote:Thanks Nitrous, this is my initial scratch and sniff.

Why would I piss him off? Surely you have already :blah: :wank: :shock: :lol:

Because you are aggressive and very abrupt, whilst also lacking and decorum.

I remember the time you verbally attacked Ells at Flying Legends one year without realising that he did not have any control over the DCS engine code. I was hugely embarrassed to be standing next to you at that point. Luckily he did not seem to react to your arrogance.
Live entertainment like this is something that would lure me to England xD
Image
I had been telling Hitler for over a year, since my first flight in an Me-262, that only Focke Wulf Fw-190 fighter production should continue in conventional aircraft, to discontinue the Me-109, which was outdated, and to focus on building a massive jet-fighter force. - Galland
Any idiot could fly a Spitfire, but it took a lot of training to fly a 109. - Gerald Stapleton

User avatar
Dickie
Polkovnik
Polkovnik
ACG Staff
Contributor
Posts: 13157
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:15 pm
Location: Gloucestershire, England

Re: DCS capability questionaire

Post by Dickie » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:00 pm

Nitrous wrote:
Dickie wrote:Thanks Nitrous, this is my initial scratch and sniff.

Why would I piss him off? Surely you have already :blah: :wank: :shock: :lol:

Because you are aggressive and very abrupt, whilst also lacking and decorum.

I remember the time you verbally attacked Ells at Flying Legends one year without realising that he did not have any control over the DCS engine code. I was hugely embarrassed to be standing next to you at that point. Luckily he did not seem to react to your arrogance.

Ha ha ha get real, "Verbally attacked" - love it. We had a good long and decent conversation between developer and project manager. You oil squirt on the factory floor wouldn't understand how that works. You big dildo!
Image

Geordie
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:25 pm
Location: Durham, United Kingdom

Re: DCS capability questionaire

Post by Geordie » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:38 pm

You're not a project manager for a company that works on games though. :'D
I mean, I had fast motor cars and fast motor bikes, and when I wasn't crashing airplanes, I was crashing motor bikes. It's all part of the game — Sir Harry Broadhurst

Bounder
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:03 pm
Location: Notts UK

Re: DCS capability questionaire

Post by Bounder » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:12 pm

I think Nitrous and Jockel have answered pretty accurately to the best of my knowledge on what DCS can support right now on the current Caucasus map in the 1.5 engine. I'd add:

- the Caucasus map isn't the most optimised map and in our tests we've found multiplayer numbers vary depending on what area of the map is used: fps is far better in the north around Novorossiysk - Krymsk - Anaps (which is the area used by Eeks on Burning Skies) compared with Kobuleti - Senaki in the south.

- the new ww2 Normandy map will run on the new edge 2.x engine and how many players, AI etc it can support is unknown on this map right now.

- DCS tends to run far better on clients using intel compared with amd machines and this can effect playability for the latter group.

Multiplayer support in DCS has improved over the last couple of years where we used to struggle with player numbers in the upper teens to now around 40 players plus AI ground units. It is possible it will continue to improve in the coming future but to what extent is almost impossible to predict. However I personally think we are a long way off DCS being able to support the same number of players and AI as Cliffs of Dover and with ACG growing to such a large group I am doubtful you'll get 80 plus players with 40 plus AI bombers stable in DCS any time soon. A more likely option would be to run campaigns in the same way we used to in Storm of War in Cliffs many moons ago, where you'd stagger squadrons activating in the mission and as the first groups return to land / die, the next wave take-off. That should be possible to try out to a certain degree right now depending on popularity within ACG.
Image
My PC specs: Win10 64 Pro, CPU i7-3820 4.4GHz, 16GB RAM, GPU Nvidia 1070 (8gb vram).
Controls: Microsoft FFB2, Thrustmaster Warthog Throttle, MFG Crosswind Pedals, TrackIR5, & a bottle of Scotch.

User avatar
Kildren
Flight Sergeant
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:33 pm
Location: Adelaide, AUSTRALIA [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]

Re: DCS capability questionaire

Post by Kildren » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:40 pm

Bounder wrote:- DCS tends to run far better on clients using intel compared with amd machines and this can effect playability for the latter group.
What about the new ryzen cpus which are just as good as the intel ones for half the price ;)
1







Speak to me about joining the ACG Pilots Union

User avatar
Dickie
Polkovnik
Polkovnik
ACG Staff
Contributor
Posts: 13157
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:15 pm
Location: Gloucestershire, England

Re: DCS capability questionaire

Post by Dickie » Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:50 am

Thanks Bounder, but we have for a long time been staggering crews in and out, we currently use 3 shifts, there are 180+ ish active ACG pilots of which 130 odd turn up for a mission on average.
Image

IronJockel
Posts: 699
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 pm

Re: DCS capability questionaire

Post by IronJockel » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:00 pm

I don't like this but it is a possible option for us in DCS: Instead of having a shift system we host lets say 2 or 3 servers at the same time on campaign night, on which we spread our squadrons equally out. Would have more or less the same effect without the timing thing (less work for mission planning). Just an idea. I know it is preferable to have everybody on the same map, but since we use a shit system that makes it impossible for some people to meet up in a fight anyway, i think this is a possible work around.
Image
I had been telling Hitler for over a year, since my first flight in an Me-262, that only Focke Wulf Fw-190 fighter production should continue in conventional aircraft, to discontinue the Me-109, which was outdated, and to focus on building a massive jet-fighter force. - Galland
Any idiot could fly a Spitfire, but it took a lot of training to fly a 109. - Gerald Stapleton

User avatar
Flyby
Leutnant
Leutnant
Contributor
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:19 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: DCS capability questionaire

Post by Flyby » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:28 pm

IronJockel wrote:I don't like this but it is a possible option for us in DCS: Instead of having a shift system we host lets say 2 or 3 servers at the same time on campaign night, on which we spread our squadrons equally out. Would have more or less the same effect without the timing thing (less work for mission planning). Just an idea. I know it is preferable to have everybody on the same map, but since we use a shit system that makes it impossible for some people to meet up in a fight anyway, i think this is a possible work around.
Or maybe an "A" and a "B" schedule whereby the same mission is run twice a month at the usual time, but is attended by half the ACG contingent. Certain squadrons of the RAF would meet certain Luftwaffe staffel twice each month. All on the same shift, and each with an alternating week off (to fly in the DCS Normandy map server which the ACG will buy a key to, and which will not have an issue with the number of breathers on the server; maybe). It's not often, if ever, that 130 pilots see al lthe action taking place during a campaign mission anyway. Fewer pilots may mean more AI bombers, etc but also an attendant decrease in server issues, to a point(?).
Flyby out
PS it may lessen the admin burden too.
Image
My Warrior creed:ACG; A good place to be.

Post Reply