Leaderboard

скоро, он следующий на текущий момент есть наработки в виде Ми-8МТВ5 (можно сказать сын МТВ3) смотрите на сайте http://www.precise3dmodeling.com/ так что выход в свет Ми8-МТВ3 не далекое будущее

Внутри архива 2 мисссии, как вводить координаты в ПВИ 800. Одна миссия интро. Другая самостоятельная(закрепление материала). Это важнейший прибор. Автопилот. Водить вертолет по шнурке от редактора ума много не надо. А вот получили вводную лететь в квадрат, обнаружить объект и его уничтожить. Координаты получили от службы космической разведки. Или ваш аэродром заняли. Запасной разбомбили. Вы должны лететь на третий ближайший. Ну нашли в АБРИСЕ, а дальше? Нажимаете INFO и перед вами координаты этого порта. Берете, вводите их в ПВИ, запустаете "маршрут" и пьете кофе. 'Скачать'

With all due respect to Mr. Sprey and Col Dilger, they should've thought out of their 1960-70s box they're thinking within. Their logic is quite uncoordinated. First they extol the virtues of air-to-air fighter aircraft to protect bombers (WW2). Then they want to kill the F-22 because there's no need for its use in the current conflicts. They don't even mention the fact that being able to prevent the enemy from flying over the battlefield allows your troops to operate without the necessity of expending resources to protect yourself from an air threat. They also get upset with all the money spent on the SAC nuclear detterent/manned bomber programs, which left the TAF with little in the way of true fighter aircraft and the gravitas to change the focus from waves of ingressing bombers without/with minimal fighter protection. You must remember that missile technology on both sides was minimal, especially putting nuclear bombs on missiles and launching them with accuracy against hardened targets. Long-ranged bombers were the logical way to go; and going 5,000nm to bomb a target isn't a job for a small fighter. So, that's where the money went. Then we get to the Korean Conflight. They argue, and rightly so, that close air support was lacking because of the emphasis on the intercontinental bomber fleet. They also argue that there was little in the way of FAC. That's also true. What they fail to mention, in only passing, is that allied efforts rely on air superiority established over the battlefield before these small ground attack and FAC aircraft can hope to survive and complete their mission. Then we get to the Vietnam Conflict. They mention that the thud, and super sabre were marginally equipped aircraft for their taskings in this conflict. How true. They were quite vulnerable to the more maneuverable and gun equipped MiGs and the fledgeling IADS systems. If only we were smart enough to develop highly maneuverable aircraft that can use energy well. Well, thankfully Mr. Sprey, along with Boyd did just that. The F-15, F-16 were instrumental in keeping air superiority in all conflicts after Vietnam. This is the key. I'll restate the key. NO GROUND FORCES HAVE BEEN LOST TO AIR ATTACK SINCE THE KOREAN WAR BECAUSE OF AIR SUPERIORITY. Now that record may be under threat. Then these gentlemen fail to recognize the single reason why the Gulf Wars and Allied Force were so successful. Despite a well-coordinated IADS, we were able to hit strategic and tactical targets, dismantling their C3I, as well as their air defenses, and maintain air superiority. They may not think this is much, but it allowed ground forces to advance without harassment from the enemy's air forces. This is key to advancing ground forces. Ground forces can then act with impunity and call in airstrikes without worrying about those precious A-10s getting shot down by the enemy's superior fighter aircraft. In an environment where we have not established air superiority, the life expectancy of an A-10 is less than 30min (give or take a lot of minutes depending on the area of operations). Does that surprise you? Without establishing air superiority, you can't operate your ground forces effectively (without suffering massive losses), which are necessary to hold vital tactical and strategic objectives, or your CAS. How can you worry about hitting those bad guys 200ft from friendlies in your hog, when you're worried about being jumped by a fishbed or fulcrum? What's worse is what they prescribe as the answer. Kill the F-22 and F-35 and do the following: * A new close support aircraft smaller, more survivable, and more lethal than the A-10, one that is affordable in vastly larger numbers. (The Air Force plans to use small numbers of the unmaneuverable, highly vulnerable and ineffective F-35, at $150 million each, for this mission.) Well that would be a UAV, now wouldn't it. Make more reapers. Yeah, that's the ticket.... But remember the Georgian UAV downed by Russia? They're all easy kills when there's no air superiority. They can't operate without air superiority. * A forward controller spotter plane dramatically more survivable, longer-loitering and far lower cost in than a helicopter, able to land next to the tents of the supported troops. (The Air Force suffers from the delusion that close support can be called in using drones, satellites, and other “high tech” sensors, contrary to the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan.) Global hawk aircraft are able to loiter far longer than any "spotter plane" developed to do what these two chucklecraniums think is needed. The army already have small UAVs that can be hand-launched as well as catapult launched that fill niche areas not able to be filled by the Global Hawk. Let's just build more recce UAVs. Oh, btw, you've established air superiority over the battlefield, right? Otherwise, we've got a bunch of smoking holes where these so-called "spotter planes" were. * A small, affordable dirt strip airlifter to meet the real emergency needs of beleaguered battalions in the boonies. (The Air Force always short-changes this in-the-mud prop mission in favor of large jet transports.) Yeah, we got that in the C-130 and C-27. But you must remember, the USAF builds large jet transports because the ARMY tasks the USAF to provide airlift for those pesky & heavy Abrams, Bradley, and SAM batteries (Patriot, etc.) and other heavy armor. You can't have it both ways. You need the ability to airlift large quantities and weights of troops, armor, artillery, vehicles, helicopters, etc. This can only be done by a large jet transport. Oh, yeah. Got air superiority? Or are you going to put slammers on those C-27s? * A super-maneuverable new air-to-air dogfighter with all–passive electronics, far smaller with far higher maneuvering performance than the best of the F-16s and thus able to outfight the F-22 or any other advanced fighter in the world. (Emitting no radio/radar signals whatsoever, this new fighter will obsolete the F-22’s electronics, defeat any enemy fighter’s passive warning/identification-friend-or-foe system, and render useless the enemy’s radar-homing missiles which rely on seeking our fighter radars.) Oh, this is rich. They must've forgot to add the heavily armored and stealty tanker aircraft that will have to accompany them everywhere to give them enough fuel to actually fly somewhere to do something to someone. How will a fighter smaller than an F-16 be able to get anywhere to do anything without carrying the gas they need to get anywhere. You've got to build a whole lot of these stealthy tanker aircraft if you're going to build massive numbers of these small fighters. Passive everything. Hmm. Interesting. This would be a great time for the US to pull out all that alien technology from the Roswell UFO crash we've been sitting on for all these years. Well, then they need to put massive amounts of ELINT aircraft in the air to act as their sensors. These, let's call them "sensor aircraft" (Rivet Joint, JSTARS, E3) would need to be able to suck up the electrons from all the enemies aircraft and threats to provide to these small, highly maneuverable aircraft that they envision, a picture of the battlefield. Oh yeah, if they don't emit, then they better have a pretty damned good way of IFFing, otherwise there's gonna be a hell of a lot of fratricide if the sensor aircraft can't ID one of them. Finally, I didn't know there was a missile out there that homed in on fighter radars? I always thought they homed in on the reflected radar energy from the aircraft that launched them (SARH) or the missile's reflected radar energy (ARH). Hmm. Very interesting. Wrongheaded, but very interesting. Now, all these aircraft that Sprey and Dilger want require pilots, even the UAVs have human pilots. Pilot's aren't cheap. They require training, experience, and salaries. Training and flying put a massive price tag on all aircraft. Flying these aircraft means we need to maintain them. This requires technicians to fix the systems, which are another cost. Then there's the sensor aircraft and the tankers. We're getting into real money now. When you look at all the logistics of their plan, the cost may compare with the cost of phasing out vipers for the lightning2 and building 381 Raptors. The F-22 is all about establishing air superiority on a massive scale. It can dominate threats in the air as well as provide all-aspect stealth while dismantling the enemy IADS and C3I. It has great range and can get there quickly and efficently with minimal elint support. The F-35 can't provide this capability. The F-35 is designed to concentrate on it's air-to-ground mission while the F-22 protects it's ingress and, especially, it's egress. To remove this capability is to remove the ability of the US to meet current and future threats. The F-15 was able to meet the current threats for its time (1970s) and 40 years into its future. Now this 1970s aircraft is no longer able to fully meet these abilities. We need to be able to establish air superiority over the battlefield against current and future threats. I don't see Mr. Sprey and Dilger's prescription fitting the bill.

Actually, i recorded at HALF speed, but increased the speed by 100%, meaning the footage is actually playing at normal speed. Though my "mouse jerkiness" in that shot makes it look otherwize... I was flying pretty fast if i remember correctly...

funny...

Боевая машина десанта БМД-2 подробнее http://www.precise3dmodeling.com/

The 1.0.1 Black Shark update is now available for download from our website at: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ From the site, please navigate to Files/Patches The complete list of 1.0.1 changes can be found here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=43547 The localized versions are in final development and will be released as soon as possible.

Maybe not really a topic for a Russian forum, but we only discuss public sources from a theoretical POV. Sprey (F-16, A-10) again lashes out at F-22 and pleads for a real dedicated lightweight fighter. http://washingtonindependent.com/32178/f-22-destroyed-on-the-tarmac Let's debate. I'm for this idea, I know that on the contrary GG is claiming that "heavier is better" and that many prefer multi-role aircraft like F-35. Sprey, an influential fighter maffia man that is no stranger to the F-16 and A-10A projects, strongly defends the one mission - one plane concept and the idea that lighter is better. I think anyone who loves the Su-25T will agree: yes to the dedicated aircaft concept, no to the Su-25T overweight! In fact Sprey wants lower-tech aircraft that can be produced in much, much larger numbers. I tend to agree: China has proven it can spit out the J-10 like we produce potatoes, this makes the plane a very real strategic reality. They have 300+ now, just for starters! In a real war they would be producing them like we built bombers in WWII. Anyway, the fighter debate is on, whether we participate or not!

hello. im trying to find out if anyone flies the A-10A on lockon... any aspect, training missions, coop missions, multiplayer, of course.. i want to get acquainted with the A-10A, and fly with others.. others that are just learning for the first time , or any one with experience who is willing to share knowledge to other pilots... the community is very small... im just trying to catch people, make a friend or 2 and fly... im trying to prepare for A-10C (yes i know..its different from A-10A) comments, suggestions? thanks.. lets fly..im playing my first run this weekend..just to play casually

Hey guys, it seems to me that when I try and use my Nvidia Control Panel to set the AA and so forth, it doesn't work. Which exe. do I need to use for black shark? Right now i'm using "launcher.exe"...I basically used the link on the desktop. Is that the right one? Any help would be great!

.....

Я вот грешным делом подумал, а почему с помощью тригеров в определенное время не включать дождь(снег). И через время он проходит. Ну как текст например. Переключать кучевые облака на сплошные не получится и не надо. Но дождь вроде это эффект. Почему взрыв сделали управляемым а дождь, чем хуже? В MSFS2004 дождик пошел, через время перестал. Было бы эффектное обновление погоды в ЧА. В правом окошечке тригеров прописать включение дождя и снега, рядом с взрывом. А управляться как хотите зонами или по времени. Думаю было бы желание, а время бы нашли.

Друг просил опубликовать его ролик, а то сделал почти год назад, а времени залить нет, зашивается на работе :) Выполняю его просьбу.:pilotfly: http://depositfiles.com/files/tbtqas9hi - 33 мб примерно. Обсуждаем, отписываемся.... ЗЫ Чуть позже сделаю ссылку на онлайн просмотр. http://smotri.com/video/view/?id=v11311304a24 посмотреть онлайн

where are the user made youtube videos of the g940?

Там "PS/2"

а можно взять USB - USB и воткнуть переходники?

It was very bad and irresponsible decision to bomb that truck with so many people around. The real question is what was the objective of bombing a stuck vehicle that could be bombed at any time?

у меня такая же фигня появилась после установки в игруhttp://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=628834&postcount=251 ни на что не влияет,но немного неприятно

It's really a transport container. It is largely used in test flights for control-and-record devices and so on. There can be different variants of them - bigger or smaller, but always "rectangular" and fully closed. The same type container (but a "twin"-one) on Mi-28N, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5pBBXAZRUI&feature=related

Airstrike ain't an option if you've got civilians in the target area, be it a Taliban or his wives. Those might have been armed mujas around the trucks but who's gonna prove that now!

Hi i bought the download version, and recently and inexplicably, my lockon folder has corrupted and ive lost some key files to run the game with. So, is there any support for me to retrieve these files? And secondly, if not, are digital downloads still available to purchase this game? Thanks

You chaps could buy some of our lovely 1990 spec Typhoons... :lol:

Драйвера Сайтека просто так не удаляются.Необходимо выполнять удаление и установку драйверов согласно инструкции на официальном сайте и форуме сайтек.Там целый ряд действий по очистке реестра от предыдущей версии.Обычная установка драйверов, при повторной установке ведут к конфликту оборудования.

You do not need to use "Global settings" nor should you if you can help it. You want the levels of AA and AF applied program specifically. It will work. I struggled with it like you and in the end finally go it to work. If you want to leave it globaly applied of course you can but if you would like it to work as designed here are a few more things you could try: It is normal that Black Shark is not listed under ""Show only programs installed on this computer"" It will not appear in this list even after you add it you must still uncheck the box before "Show only programs installed on this computer" to see it. Try this. Under "3D settings" in the "adjust image settings with preview" section on the right pane select and apply "use my preferences emphasizing Balanced" after Applying it then once again tick the "Use the advanced 3D image settings" button and apply. Click on "take me there" (after applying). Here click the "Program settings" tab. Uncheck the box before "Show only programs installed on this computer" Click "add" Browse to DCS.exe select 8x AF then under "Antialiasing mode" select "Override any application setting" and set 8x antialiasing. Now click "apply". Hope this is helpful. If not feel free to come to our TS at the 104th and we will try to help you sort it out if you like. Just hit our website at www.104thphoenix.com and click on the TS module on the right to join. pass is phoenix. Good Luck! Out

Which drivers are you using? OS? Video Card? Maybe we can sort this out. It is not launcher.exe ever. It is always DCS.exe. If you are using the latest whql nvidia drivers in the Nvidia control panelunder 3D settings "adjust image settings with preview" in the right pane select (tick the radio button) "use the advanced 3D image settings" and apply. After this click "Manage 3D settings" set up your programs under the "Program settings" tab in the right pane. Click "add" and browse to the DCS.exe in your bin\stable folder. As mentioned for Antialiasing mode select "override any application setting" then set your own level of AA and AF and click apply. The settings should stick as long as you are pointing to the DCS.exe not the launcher. Out

^^^^ Yes, you are certainly correct, I should have said 'looks'. Heh, my best experience with 'difference in speed' was going karting. Doing 70kph in my car ... meh. Are we going somewhere yet? On the kart? ZOMG what am I in Indy500? Same speed, completely different feeling because of the POV.

oh ya, thats what I meant, the film, not the ingame

I was bored with the default F4 view, so I played around a bit with the “server.lua” file. Maybe you will like some of those I “produced”. You just have to replace server.lua file from C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\Ka-50\Config\View folder with some of my server.lua files. If some of you also have edited some interesting F4 views, maybe you could share? ;) I’m also posting a example of one of 14 different F4 views attached below. Attachment: F4 View.rar

Тягу нужно не "ставить", ей нужно работать. Причем достаточно интенсивно, пока не придет шестое чувство. Ты режим "Посадка" включал? Директор на ИЛС должен тебя вывести нормально, а потом просто следи - видимая линия стыка лобового стекла и "торпедо" должна лежать на втором-третьем тросе. Вот так и рули. Выравнивание и выдерживание не выполняй - касание должно быть жестким. в момент касания - полный форсаж, если гак зацепится - он не помешает. если промах - позволит уйти на повторный.

Indeed they are.. You can see from the pictures below that they work as a paralellogram to keep the pedal faces paralell to your feet. That all depends.. Normal airplane pedals will have a centering force because of the preasure of the air flowing over the rudder wil try to push it back to a "neutral" position. Helicopters on the other hand does not have a centering force from the aerodynamics. Most choppers does not have a centering force on the controls at all. But the Blackshark does.. Allthough this is acheaved by linking the mechanics of the HOCAS and pedals to a system of springs and clutches. But it's important to see the main difference in the use of pedals in helicopters opposed to in airplanes. In a helicopter you almost never fly with the pedals nice and centered. because they are not only used to control your direction, but also to balance out the forces working in the horizontal plane. This is why most choppers have pedals that allow the pilot to have the heels in one place, making the chance of leg cramps after hours of flying smaller: Like these from a BELL Helicopter.. The Blackshark uses the standard pedals also found in other Russian planes and helicopters (allthough slightly modified in the hub mechanics from what I could see in the pictures). But I am guessing that they don't have a full 8-10 inch deflection like most airplanes do... Again the whole "cramp issue" from hours with your feet in an aquard position..? But I'm not sure about this.. It just makes more sence.. Standard Russian Pedals used in (amongst others) the Su-25/Su-25T: Slighly older version, but you see the likeness?: Same pedals in a MI-2 Helicopter: On the other hand the Blackshark should get some centering force from it's Fin&Rudder tail when flying at some speed. Weather this force is adequate to neutralize the torque force from moving your cyclic stick I do not know.. Probably not..! But I digress.. back to your question.. So If I used "normal" pedals I would either remove the centering force all together, or at least make it as small as possible. You obviously haven't had the joy of flying DSC/BS with a Force Feedback setup, am I right? With FFB you don't have to return the stick to center at all. The center moves to the position your control is when you release the trim button. The pedals work in the same way. I press trim, move stick and pedals so the chopper is stable like I want it, and when I release Trim again the stick and pedals just stay there.. It's BRILLIANT..!:thumbup: Now we're talking..! If you want to make FFB pedals I have done two of them now, and I'll be delighted to give you any info you want. The main difference is the "move your feet with heel stationary" or "move your legs" setup. But this can be achieved by using hall effect sencors instead of potmeters, as they are more exact you can physicly "block" the pedals movement when flying a chopper simulator. I have done so on my pedals if you see the two 6mm bolts preventing the main axle from moving to much. My FFB with stuff from an old FFB Racing Wheel: Hall Effect sensor: :helpsmilie:... I should'nt say this, but I think they are ALL C*** ...:cry: that's why I have always made my own pedals.. And it's sooo simple to.! Thay don't even have to look good since thay are always stuck under your desk? But my main reason for building them was that the spacing between the pedals were always to thight.. My first DIY pedals (they still work like a charm, AND feels really smooth and presice to!): My DIY Pedals:

Этож не наши методы. Наёмник,у меня есть переделанный тимплей КА-50.Там все эти петельки сделаны прозрачными.Если интересует-могу скинуть слои

Some claim that 1.0.1a gives you +a boost to your minimum FPS. The [a] value range changes between systems :) I guess that was not intended by the developers ;)

Thank you ED - we love you guys! ;) Here's one for you for you at the office: :drunk:

Huge thanks for all ED Team, ED Partners and Beta-Testers! :clap_2:

Сломался в январе трекир.... просто перестал работать и всё... думал что кабель перебил... чиркнул ножом что бы глянуть а там всё норм.. после мысля пришла ....блин он же на гарантии... По прибытии в Москву долго не решался пойти в комп2.ру дабы поменять... Решившийсь прихожу в контору отдаю трекир, его проверяют через ЮСБи, увидев что он не работает, продавец кидает его в сторону приносит новый трекир и аля улю новый трекир)))) Как только получил его, через секунд 30 у продовца шансов найти меня небыло))))))))))) Контора супер))

да все