Leaderboard

Herewith a quick guide I put together that firstly illustrates the setup of a SADL network prior to a Flight by looking at the Call-Sign, OWN and GROUP ID entries and thereafter Illustrating the use of the SADL network in an Operational Multiplayer Environment, specifically focusing on A - The Creation and Transmission of Target Assignments between Players utilizing Markpoints, B - SPI Broadcasting and C - Instant Messaging. I have intentionally focused this guide on markpoints only insofar as Target Assignments are concerned as I have found that it's quick and easy. **Disclaimer: Any and all erors are mine alone and not indicative of the SIM and attendant content. If I aid one fellow Virtual Aviator by this guide then I consider it Time Well Spent** [ATTACH]53165[/ATTACH]

Eponsky_bot Классная трава у вас сударь

----------------------------- 07/08 Important Update ----------------------------- Please download the Combined Document Pack from HERE to obtain this file UPDATED FOR VERSION 1.1.0.9 Start Up Guide v1.2 - 27/07 Mission Data Card v.1.7 - 05/08 After reading all of the excellent Start Up Guides out there, I wanted to make one that is simple and easy to use for flying missions and campaigns, for beginners, like me, who have gone through the tutorials but need a helping hand starting up their machines. It was important for me to be able to print this checklist out on 2 sides of Din A4 so that it fits in a transparent sleeve, which is easy to use and store. I don't have much free time, so as much as I respect the official start-up procedures, this guide aims to get you in the air as quickly as possible. I have also redesigned the Mission Data Card and tailored it for missions and campaigns, as I don't fly online. This is also included below and I hope that it helps some of you as it has me. Print two to a page and you should have a handy reference card during your missions. Many thanks to Snoopy for his excellent Real Life Checklists upon which my guide is based. It's great to have someone who works with these planes on board here and helps to make it feel all the more real. This wouldn't have been possible without the information you have shared with us. Thank you. Happy hunting

The 104th proudly announce our 2nd community mission for 2011: OPFOR 11-2 When: Saturday 09-July2011 Time: 20:30 – 23:30 GMT Blue Side be in 104th Teamspeak one hour before the event at 19:30 GMT for briefing. Red Side Teamspeak TBA one hour before the event at 19:30 GMT for briefing. Where: 104th Dedicated Server. Password to be given during TS briefing How: This will be a closed password required event. In order to sign-up, please post in the OPFOR 11-2 thread on the 104th forums that you wish to join. Make sure to include the names of all the pilots you would like to have participate including their 104th forum user name so that they may be setup with access to their respective planning room. Also include your preferred side to fly, the type of aircraft, and the airbase for every pilot. Note that you may not get your preferred plane slot and may be allocated differently in the interest of team balance. Participants will be accepted up to 48 hours before the event if there are available slots still left. All squadrons and individual ‘lone wolf’ players are welcomed. Once you have been signed on to the event, you will have access to a private planning room for your chosen side, either Red or Blue. If you are not sure you can make it to the event or stay the duration of the mission, then please do not sign up! For the next event, you may not be allowed to participate if you are a no show. People with older PCs and/or internet connections should consider if their PC is up to the task of handling this event. Make sure to turn down all graphic options. Event is limited to 58 players maximum. 29 per side. Mission Description: Operation: Lermontov - Red vs. Blue, No AWACS available. The mission will be edited from the current version so that both sides have equal distances to targets. The final mission with briefing will be available soon in the planning threads. The winning team will be the team to score the most points at the end of the 3 hour event. Intel on point values/mission goals to follow soon in this thread. Statistics and scoring for the event are tracked and will be posted on the 104th forum after the event. Mission will remain on "Pause" until all players are ready to start as monitored by the server admin. Full leagal payloads (payloads avaialable with default install of FC2) allowed as well as: R-77, Kh-29T, KAB-500 Allowed on Su-27. AIM-120B, AGM-65D allowed on MiG-29G DOWNLOAD HERE Match Rules - 1 Life per player. Players must exit the game server immediately after their death or a penalty will be applied. - You may exit flight after landing and coming to a full stop at a friendly base to refresh game or choose a new available slot. This will not be counted as a loss. Ask admin for permission to rejoin before exiting. - Pilots may land and rearm only at friendly available bases. Landing anywhere else will be considered a loss. - Assigned player slots can be changed between pilots of the same team, if agreed between both pilots or if an empty slot is available. - You cannot quit in flight intentionally during the event for any reason and rejoin. Players disconnected due to a game crash or internet disconnection may only rejoin if granted permission by an admin (as admin for permission to rejoin). You will not be allowed to reconnect at any time if you were engaged with any enemy. - All pilots must land BEFORE the end of the event. A notification will be given when there are 10 minutes left in the event. Any pilot still in the air at the end of the event will be counted as a loss and any points obtained by that pilot during that last flight will be revoked. General server rules as listed in 104th mission briefing apply to this event. Max ping 400ms will be manually enforced by admin. Turn down as many graphic options as you can. Even more than you would normally flying online. Turn down all but textures. textures high (for instrument readability) water = normal visib range = medium heat blur = off shadows = active planar Connection speed in MP options = ASDL 256/128

Greetings, Just a quick one. I have had this incredible sim now only for a few days. I currently have a Logitech Extreme 3D pro stick and I am usiong that in conjunction with the keyboard. Naturally and after reading information on here, it would be wise for me to add some extra peripherals. What would you guys recommend be my initial purchase please, the TRack IR5 or HOTAS Warthog? I will then buy the other item as cash flow committs later. Thanks in advance.

hi the first thing that dcs series need is a completely rewritten 3D engine dx 11 we need that game engine use vertex buffer, hardware buffer ,multithread batch , tesslation to limit as possible cpu call ... i don't care about hdr :D shadow not priority :D i think game like this need 300km 360° when you fly high 12km clear weather i dont think it's possible to use dynamic light for 300 km 360 ° at least for 180 ° 90000km2:D need static lighting pregenerated in editor we select how much time we generate (2h etc the mission stop when it reachs it) it (include weather for cloud shadow , tree shadow etc... ) dynamic lighting for moving object etc light light projector (actually don't work) need occlusion algorithm when we fly low(ka 50) (or city) because we need very high lod like in arma 2 stop using satellite texture because => horrible, take too much memory we need texture like arma 2 when we fly low (in fact they are repetitive but not bad ^^) only ground texture not flat tree or crap like this^^ we need better tree better lod when they are near us we need tree in number so there won't be void ground :doh: multi texture when the texture are far so we can think there are grass and when we are near 500m polygon grass second we need better cache i mean no malloc() or fread() fwrite() crap in the last second that's creepy :D the environement need to be preallocted 360° no page fault plz we are not in 1999 :mad: no building when we are landing we page fault in the last moment :mad: even trigger can be pre allocated no page fault:mad: explosion etc ... need dedicated server need the plane don't spawn when someone use it (it spawn at the beginning ) ai take control if player disconnect etc :) need sdk (c c++)

And I have the feeling that this niche market is not as big as it was in the nineties. Back then I knew some people who flew flightsims in reallife. But nowadays, all that I have known either are not interested anymore because of being married and having a family and a job, or don't have time because of being married and having a family and a job. DEJA VU?! I still don't understand how they can still produce such a high fidelity simulation, when the product price didn't change. Same with the Warthog HOTAS. Do they really sell that well around the globe?

Here's your statement: Your argument was not that you are a "consumer". Your argument was that to do the job of simulating air combat you need something like the F4 DC. This is false. Worse than false: it's the opposite of the truth. Here's the simple fact, extracted from reality: simulators do not sell well enough to fund an immediate development of something like the F4 DC. It's NOT a case of laziness. It's not a case of oversight. It's a case of companies not wanting to commit seppuku. The only reason you have DCS to fly, as opposed to a 10 year old failed simulator and HAWX, is that ED is able to leverage synergies between military and consumer requirements. If you doubt it, tell me how things went for Microprose and Razorworks. First of all, it's "I couldn't care less". English is my second language (well, technically my third, but who cares). If you could care less it means you... could care less. IE - you care. ;) Sorry, I'm a grammar nazi. :P Anyhow, you SHOULD care about what the military wants. First of all because your whole argument was that a DC is required to simulate combat. The point that the guys who have a life-and-death (and billion-dollar) requirement to adequately simulate combat don't care about DC's at all I thought would illustrate the error in that statement. Secondly, what they want fund a good part of the product you get. Obviously I don't know all the details, but I'd wager a couple month's salaries that without said contracts there'd be no DCS at all. Nothing. Nada. ничего. Again: a DC offers immersion; not simulation. The IL-2 standard "DC" was technically crap but I still played it because it was fun in a sort of RPG way. I'm not contesting the point that DC is fun, I'm contesting the specific point that you made. You went on a tirade about "half your age" against a person you know nothing about. That is not kosher. Do not do it again. It's nothing about throwing weight around, it's about what Eagle Dynamics have tasked me to do on this forum: keep the peace. You contravened §1.2 of the rules and I cautioned you for it. End of story. Last I checked the product seemed to be selling pretty well, though I'm not privy to the details. The point I'm trying to get across is that money needs to be made to fund development, and in this industry there's almost no such thing as an "operating income". You up-front the cash to develop the project, and you either make a profit or you die. Eagle Dynamics has decided to target synergies between the markets and let that co-fund the development on both sides. And example (though, again, I don't know exact details so add a pinch of salt, I'm mainly just illustrating the point as far as I know it): For DCS:A-10C, the avionics, sensors, hydraulics etcetera simulation was funded by a military contract towards providing training software for the training of USAF/USANG A-10C pilots. The military, however, doesn't really care about the flight model - they teach "flying" though... flying. ;) So the flight model was funded on the commercial side. Profits from both can be allocated towards other aspect, such as working towards a DC. And ED is working towards a DC - they know we all want it, they want it, but they have to balance the books. I don't think they made the mission generator for pure giggles. They have a plan, and I don't know exactly what the plan is but I've learned to have faith in what they do. For one thing, because they've made good stuff happen. For another, because they've done it in a market that is generally considered suicide to be in. That's the thing I am trying to get across to you: if you equate "immersion" to a DC (though earlier the DC was a requirement for simulation, make up your mind ;) ), there's no such thing as a "just". There's two companies that tried it, Microprose and Razorworks. They're both defunct. Seriously, really take a moment to think about that. Two companies tried it. They're both dead. Gone. Kaputt. Chapter 11. That is the point.

Watch him come tomorrow with the code for an engine that tops every flight simulation ever made eightfold :music_whistling:

I'm having some trouble with BTF-06. After a successful stall and spin recovery I go up to angels 15 and I start the defensive spiral. There's where I get in trouble, because I always get the "terminate" message because of exiting the MOA. I'm pretty sure that my heading and speed are correct and of course I don't break the hard deck limit. Any clue of what I'm doing wrong? Thank you Sabre for this great job you're doing.:thumbup:

Very nice work there Viper, thank you.

okay my bad... here it is Boulund.... and for the others in the community.;) Open this file view.lua (found in Lock On Flaming Cliffs 2 folder) with a program called Notepad++(its free and easily downloadble). Then go to these lines in the code: CameraViewAngleLimits = {} CameraViewAngleLimits[su_27] = {20.0, 120.0} CameraViewAngleLimits[su_33] = {20.0, 120.0} CameraViewAngleLimits[su_25] = {20.0, 120.0} CameraViewAngleLimits[su_25T] = {20.0, 120.0} CameraViewAngleLimits[MiG_29] = {20.0, 120.0} CameraViewAngleLimits[MIG_29K] = {20.0, 120.0} CameraViewAngleLimits[F_15] = {20.0, 140.0} CameraViewAngleLimits[A_10A] = {20.0, 140.0} Increase the numbers {20.0, 120.0} to a desired range. Only the average of these two numbers will count. So the higher the average the better the ability to have a look at all the instruments in the cockpit without having to move up and down. For example... I set my Su-33 to this value {55.0, 235.0}. By doing this I can see all the instruments in the cockpit without looking up or down or side to side. It differs from aircraft to aircraft... so one would have to play around with the numbers to find out. Once done... save the file and restart the game.

Thank you V very very much! :thumbup: EDIT: Your "Instant Message" should mobilize wingman as anything else :lol: :D

1.http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/file/1743-mig-29k-mod-for-fc2-and-skins-mig-29k/ (Replacement Skins) 2. http://www.virtual-jabog32.de/index.php?section=downloads&subcat=21&file=1202 (Defolt skin by TOMCATZ)

почему не та? чем х52 отличается от х65?) кроме того, что старее - но зато не с дурацким тензо-русом?)

(Ethereal, since you are new in this thread I think, my background: I don't own any DCS module, but I own EECH and have briefly looked at the DC code with the goal of improving it, though because of work I dropped that project.) This quote from Ethereal is the main reason I stopped insisting on a DC. I'm pretty sure that, by now, some folks at ED already know that a reasonable portion of the non-military clients would enjoy a DC. It's definitely true that adding a DC would bring additional revenue in the form of more sales. But at what cost? The Dev from Falcon 4 himself admitted that the F4 DC was a huge undertaking and that given the chance to go back he'd do things differently. Let's suppose it takes 10 Dev-years to develop a decent DC (i.e. one Dev working 10 years, or two working 5 years, etc). Assuming a Dev makes, say, $1500 per month, that's $18000 per year, or $180000 total cost for the DC. Unless DCS would sell an additional 4500 copies ($180000 total cost divided by $40, price of each copy), it's not worth it. And I'm assuming that the whole $40 goes to ED for each copy, which is not true even for digital copies. The values I presented might be, and probably are, wrong. But that's not important. What's important is this type of analysis, which we all need to understand. The creators of Falcon 4 either didn't do this analysis, or did it with unrealistic values, and they went bankrupt because of it. ED's decision of relying more on military contracts than consumer sales seems very wise IMO, if for nothing else, then simply because as Ethereal said, they're still here. Of course, us the consumers don't like it. ED's decision of releasing core DCS functionality iteratively with each new aircraft seems like a good compromise between having great ambitions and having your feet on the ground.

:thumbup: Good for Yoda..I am happy things went in a good direction for him...

I never said ED was lazy, obvious fanboy is obvious. Perhaps the DC in F4 was screwed up, but its not neccesarily the execution that made it great so much as the concept. This series is called Digital Combat Simulator, to simulate combat you should create a conflict and then drop the player into it as a very small cog in a large wheel. Falcon4 created a war, not just an aircraft and then some cheesy scripted missions around it. If you cant see the beauty in the F4 DC then, you my friend, are completely blind. I dont mean to be condescending but to have some guy whos probably half my age tell me I dont know what I'm talking about, especially a forum moderator and tester, really makes me wonder if the choices ED is making arent being steered in the wrong direction by the wrong people. Dont get me wrong, DCS is brilliant in its own right but a true DC could only make something this good that much better. That is all. Keep up the good work guys and listen to your community, we write the checks for the guy who writes the checks after all.

This is the worst tech support I have ever gotten to this point with anything. If a staff member cannot provide any responce at all, I am forced to request a refund for this product that has been sitting on my desktop for 4 weeks now doing nothing but taking up memory.

Dear Tyger, just a short reply to yesterday evening. For the first time ever (?) there had been 18 people flying dcs-a10 on one server which had been one of the greatest multiplayer experience for me in a while. You should be proud of this, because the server was crowded and stable. Don´t be too harsh with people not joining your TS3 server, probably they will soon enough. But PLEASE don´t force clients to do this and that, after all it´s a leisure-time sim/game. :) People behaved totally nicely yesterday, no teamkills, no friendly fire, although the strike was probably not that effective as a TS3 based attack-group would have been... For instance, I was talking to my girlfriend in the background, and had 2 phonecalls during the online session. So usually I do not have a problem with joining a TS3 server, but sometimes it just doesn´t work out. Don´t take it personal ! :) Plus the fact that english isn´t the native language of many players, so probably language based groups could help some people. Greetings scheffchen

Try this: 1. Display a mav on the right MFCD and the TGP on the left. 2. Make the TGP the SOI (Coolie hat left long). 3. Make the TGP designate the SPI (TMS up/fwd long). 4. Slave all sensors to the SPI (China hat right long). 5. Slew the TGP - you will see the mav seeker move on the right MFCD as you move the TGP as shown on the right.

Nice "stunt"!!! Regards!!!

This sim has a tendency to do that...Any free moment I have between 2 kids/wife, a puppy, work...its spent on flying the A-10 :)

I currently run following: Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit 12GB Corsair 9-9-9-25 DDR3 Asus Maximum III Formula Intel i7 950 @ 4GHz ATI HD5870 1GB (running 24" 1920x1080 & 2x 8" 800x600, sim running windowed mode 1920x1800) Creative X-Fi Titanium PCIe Corsair HX850W PSU 7" touchscreen HOTAS Cougar LeoBodnar USB controler in game I use all High except water is medium, civ-traffic sometimes off sometimes medium, HDR is off, mirrors are off, grass set to 200m with high density tweak, treees 9000m, TSAA off, 4xAA, cockpit displays 1024 every frame, in ATI CCC AA is set to Adoptive AA and with these settings I run most of the time above 20fps, only in situtations where I am on runways/base with few high poly aircrafts I get FPS in 10's... but there are some extreme cases where I end up in single digit FPS :D

Yes, I can agree with that, though, in my opinion, this first step, while a good one, doesn't add a large amount of utility for us customers. It’s a decent step for us users, and far from useless (I’ve used it a few times myself) but perhaps it’s a bigger first step for the guys coding the modules than for us customers. If I might brag a little on myself :music_whistling:, what I'd really like to do sometime between “very soon” and “eventually” is to finally implement a mission where all your mission taskings were dynamically generated. I already have quite a bit of the pre-requisite code completed. For example, in the mission I released called "Kashuri CAS", fliers might notice that the friendly ground units will usually start calling for CAS around 1 hour into it. These calls for CAS are all dynamically generated based off enemy units the friendly ground units are capable of seeing (LOS and range checks are done), and the real, actual coordinates of those enemy units, retrieved real-time from the game engine. No "Unit in zone" triggers or anything like that- it's all generated during game runtime. I really hope to release a new scripting library sometime after 1.1.0.9 release that includes these features. So anyway, the idea is that perhaps, after I add a few more ways in which dynamic taskings could occur, I make a mission where there's a bunch of friendly armor and enemy armor, and those armored units are doing their own thing, moving around trying to capture towns, or escorting supply convoys, etc. There will be a bunch of friendly AI aircraft too. I know how to dynamically task AI aircraft, and I know how to output text to the screen to task human pilots. So I just make a scenario like that lasts like 24 hours, pop in the script, and bam- you have a fairly long-lasting dynamic scenario that can be run on a dedicated server. Tasking would be dynamically generated off of battlefield conditions. Eventually, I could program in a “save” feature that would create a .miz based off of current conditions so that you wouldn’t need a dedicated server to see the whole mission. (Minus the save feature, perhaps) this is an objective I should be able to complete well before we get DCS: Most-Likely-F-18C. However, the way Moa's stats mod just got totally screwed gives me pause: why should I pursue such a project if they could just #@$# over all my work during any old random patch? I had some old code myself that worked in similar ways to Moa's mod (though of course, nowhere near as complex), and was considering using it again for a new project- now I can't and that old code is useless. It's mostly not ED's fault when something like that happens though, really- the modders need to communicate what it is they need, and hopefully, ED can provide, and furthermore, these kinds of things happening to mods and modders eventually becomes inevitable in a continuous WIP thing like DCS. However, ED does need to provide a better and more stable Lua interface, and the sooner they do that, the sooner the quality and quantity of mods will increase. Anyway, at some point in the near future I will probably make a topic about this. So I’ll try to fulfill my end of the bargain by telling ED what I need Lua wise, and hope that others are willing to chime in as well.

А много еще по А-10 можно было бы добавить? Ведь вроде, все сделално... :huh: А давайте какойнить самолет, (к примеру Як-52, или какой другой) соберем вместе.... вы будете нам продавть за рельные деньги комплектующие и части самолета, а мы будем их устанваливать :D но так что бы можно было помотерть прям в симуляторе.. посидеть в строящемся ЛА.. понять как он устроен. :music_whistling:

GeK39 IL-76MD Compatibility with others mods Hi First , What is ``cobrabase's Su-33´´ ? Second, the difference between version 1.7 and the version 2.11 expansion will see her in these two links: http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/file/1683-a10-f15c-su27-extended-version-21/ http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/file/1511-a10-f15c-su27-standard-edition-17/ Now with my mods you can add new model of GeK39 IL-76MD Candid to every one. On the other hand I have new surprises finished sure which one was waiting for long time In these days public them.:music_whistling: Best regards Brisafresca:pilotfly:

almost all of 141st members were there. just like that: attention number plate :D

Logitech Flight System G940 10510 руб. http://www.regard.ru/catalog/tovar51989.htm Saitek X-65F 11590 руб http://www.regard.ru/catalog/tovar51878.htm Saitek X52 Pro 5960 руб. http://www.regard.ru/catalog/tovar51937.htm

Неподвижный РУС смущает как-то, меня лично. Нет же, вроде, симов по таким ЛА на сегодня. Потому как-то "не труЪ"...

У логитеча еще и педали в комплект входят.

One can click his brains out and the official page still will not answer the question - what patch do I need?. A hint: there are two. There's still a necro-sticky topic for 1.0.1 patch while topic for the latest patch is buried in the official updates section (not sticky). Also (less significantly) the download pages don't have links to the official release/changelog topics. I promise it will give nice returns.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/15/27-inch-imac-core-i7-with-ssd-is-fastest-mac-ever/ This ought to be a decent DCS machine. Most of this benchmark test is single threaded apps. Wonder what the next MacPro's will be like.