Leaderboard

Требуется ли знание английского языка?

ENGLISH BETTY for BLUE coalition V2.0 ENGLISH BETTY for RED coalition V2.1

For those that do not get to LockOnFiles frequently, take a look at this: http://www.lockonfiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8995#8995 dBc6NBbmLBs&feature=player_embedded Up there with the best I've seen :thumbup:

you have the link in there too, you dont need that. just the embeded part.. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=49623

Yea speaking of the limitations, the new 3D sound engine makes the immersion and quality of the sounds much better (and also almost bug free). Still though, the new 3D soundengine is really only an overlay. A better name for the new 3D soundengine would be "3D sound processor". We are still dealing with the exact same hardcoded sound files that did not change since the very first LockOn. You can only replace these sounds, you can not make new sounds with new "triggers". We can only make the game sound fully real if ED (and they will with DCS:A10 and other new DCS series) codes new soundfiles with their hardcoded triggers. As example "Planewind". This sound will be hearable from speeds from ~60km/h up to unlimited. The trigger is the speed. Now, without going in to too many details. Real jets sound very diverse (like tens of different sounds in different situations). In lockon, we are basically dealing with 4 soundfiles..... PlaneFrontEngine PlaneBackEngine PlaneWind PlaneAfterburer And then, the PlaneFrontEngine must sound good both on the ground, and in the air, at high and slow speeds. PlaneWind must sound good at a cargo aircaft, aswell as a jet, aswell when the jet has the engines off. In short, we are very limited..... Hapily we can edit sdef files, with which you can edit the sound behaviour like ranges and angles a little bit, but that is in fact only for finetuning. We do the best we can with these few files, but only ED would be able to give us the ultimate realism, which is absolutely possible with the new 3D soundprocessor! (The future is bright :D)

wtf :helpsmilie:

Причины выбора A-10A в соревновании с A-9A. - Большинсто пилотов предпочло лучшие летные характеристики А-10. - Меньшая инерция по крену. - Более легкий доступ к подкрыльевым узлам подвески. - Более короткий срок перехода к серийному производству. - Использование существующих двигателей TF-34 использующихся на S-3 Viking. - Лучшее резервирование систем и живучесть.

You could try enabling/disabling Trueview in the TIR software? Nate

Дополню - если они выберут единую частоту телекодового обмена.

Hi Bogus, sorry for chipping on the thread. I am flying Russian-made choppers without ILS, DME or VOR. We have only ADF stuff on-board with radio altimeter. So, we are practicing full NDB approaches, and preparing to do it everywhere according to the AIPs. If an aerodrome issues its approach procedures, it means that everyone who wants or accidentally happens to fly in, must follow these. If this aerodrome has a terminal and/or approach radar (or radar info), which they can use for separation either in IMC, the APP can vector evy aircraft on different flight paths if necessary: for example, helos don't need to fly "full" approaches and can be inserted into the gaps between fixed wing traffic. If I have to alternate to an int'l aerodrome with a big pile of heavy traffic in IMC, I'll probably be vectored although I know and can use the NDB stuff. But if our aerodrome has no terminal radar information, they can't ensure IFR separation. In these cases (which are far more often), every aircraft must follow the issued procedures. Either if I am with a helo or not, I must use my approach plates. These are developed for all the approach speed categories, so for helos as well. The APP can maintain separation by requiring mandatory reports over fixes, using holding patterns, altitude separation etc., so they can handle a Big Mac and a JetRanger in the same time. And one more thing: I heard a story about a, well, fixed-wingie commander who said: who cares about helos in IMC in this airbase? They can hover over the runway and descend below the clouds to the ground... No. A simple helo (no Doppler, no GNSS) has no instrument to get into hover in IMC, and even with these stuff, it is hard to maintain your hover within the clouds. Try it with BS but turn off the HUD. Helos also shouldn't decelerate under a specific airspeed during an IFR approach. Although they won't stall and fall down but the helo will be less stable around her axes (and unstable according to airspeed), more and more handjob :D will be necessary to maintain the attitude (and the approach path), and the loss of sensing your attitude often happens. Not a good feeling IRL... That means, in IMC, that helos have to be handled as a fixed wing stuff but with less airspeed. Sorry again for chipping on, but I think I should write these. Cheers!

A nice shot, taken from today's training.

Самый простой способ, и именно так сделано во все сетевых миссиях на всех серверах, поставь две группы вертолетов по одному вертолету в группе на один филд.

в качестве бонуса ещё будет и то, что добровольцы выучат мануал раньше всех :)

Helicopters can't fly, they're just so ugly the earth repels them. :music_whistling: Dunno why I'm not a chopper fan to be honest. Perhaps my years working with fast jets has corrupted me, but I just can't get over how mind numbingly slow they are. Well that and the fact I'm a much, much better virtual multi-role/A-G fighter pilot than I am a chopper pilot, even after over a year of practice. I think it's a real testament to how good a job the ED team have done with BS that despite my dislike of choppers, and Russian aircraft (unless I'm seeing them surrounded by a seeker diamond through the HUD of my Viper) I still keep flying BS. The only thing that's going to pull me away from it is A-10C, ahhh turbofans rather than turboshafts and wings that don't spin around over my head.

Stats are more difficult in FC2 because the information you need is now spread between three files (debrief log, network log, and the mission file) rather than the two files in FC1 (mp_log and network log, although only the former was used by most). The upside of the FC2 stats is there is a lot more information available about what went on in a mission. For example, the missiles, shells and bombs fired are now recorded. This allows tracking player loadouts more accurately (cheaters with illegal loadouts can be detected) and the player's accuracy can be calculated eg. players making (legitimate) kills by spamming missiles will have a far worse efficiency than the sniper pilots out there who use one or two missiles per kill. This is just one of the statistics that can be used to distinguish the great pilots among us, and represents objective skill measurement which allows us to strive for more. There are several stats efforts going on at the moment (myself and 3Sqn are working on them AFAIK, perhaps Case is also?). I am trying to finish testing the port of my own FC1 stats system to FC2 by early July. It will operate substantially as the FC1 version does at http://stallturn.com/scores/ but with the addition of scoring for the Ka-50. My scoring software and its (platform-independent, Java) source code will be made available to all squadrons that want to use it. I also hope to get it to output a simpler FC1-like format which allows re-use of existing scoring systems (for example, the 51sts excellent inter-squadron Common Stats system). Accurately aggregating three sources of data (all with completely different structure) is quite an effort so is taking a while.

Yeah Vade... You thought we wouldn't recognize you...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce-gtx-465_6.html#sect0

you got a pm! simmeters could be a solution!?