Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
You might be able to get away with mostly medium settings, but certainly not full.
There are limitations you have to accept when running on those (if they meet minimum requirements).
My testing notebook have just arrived.
I set all on ultra/high/all slides to the right - >
results:
During free flight (aka i am almost alone on map) it kept 60FPS even near ground.
When i flew mission CAS-difficult in SU-25T it was around 40-50FPS up in the air, but dropping near ground to 18-25FPS.
I am quite impressed how well GTX970m handles DCS :-).
It is testing laptop so i did not want to activate any paid modules, but still do you think it would have had some impact on performance to use some advanced models?
Cities and places with more objects will also have more demand on resources than empty areas.
We don't know yet what kind of demand next terrain upgrade will have in 2.5 but ensuring easy upgrades is good idea.
Aircraft with advanced systems will require more CPU power for simulations so that kind of framerate in the sky is not possible on my current computer in those cases.
You do need to consider whole computer when estimating the performance of DCS on a computer.