Leaderboard

Тема не раз поднималась о плохо видимых целях. Что реально конечно. Но с этим нужно бороться по реальному. Например в книге о ракетах В/З говорится о качественной атаке с применением наземных авианаводчиков. Для российской стороны это боман-бтр с "кленом". В игре думаю для этого достаточно появление ромбиков на целях для самолетов. Естественно бтр должен быть активным. При его уничтожении, подсветка пропадает.

Latest Red Flag

Post your stupid questions here! There was one on a Finnish aviation forum so why not here too? In almost all of the places where I have worked in aviation business, the professionals have always told us that there is no such thing as a stupid question. Rather ask a stupid one than misunderstand and screw something up for a stupid reason. Many people have alot of questions they are embarrassed to ask so here's a place to vent it out! Some things seem too hard to even google and it doesn't have to be even a stupid one but... ask anything! Here's one. The first AESA or synthetic aperture radar ground mapping images I saw I thought were just normal pictures photoshopped to look radarish due to the shadows I see there. A radar can't see shadows, right? But seeing such images from official sources as the one below have to be real. So what's the reason why we see shadows on radar images? :huh:

Theoricaly, nothing prevent the ArmA's engine to handle bigger maps. It is capable of doing so. I don't know if you've already tried the 31st Normandy Mod, they've made a map recreating Britany, the channel and the south of England = 156.300 m x 156.300 m = 24.000 Km² ! Now , ok, still not as big as the caucasus map but that's a comfortable playground for a flight sim. Also note +/- 50% of the caucasus map is water. Well that's the whole point of linking those games. Why would you spend your time and money doing something someone else is already "mastering". IMHO it's a waste of ressources. ED would focus on what they do best : flight sims and BIS would focus on infantry. Linking them would allow you to enjoy best of both worlds. Right now it takes 2-3 years to ED to develop a DCS module in its area of predilection : flight sim. How long would it take them to develop a module in an area they have no experience at all ? Their engine is made around flight sim. Just take a look at the dynamic weather system. This kind of system has little to no use in a FPS. That's why, IMHO, linking those 2 games would be more profitable than seeing ED and BIS improving on their own other aspect of their respectives universes. In ArmA 2 you can, with the mission editor, max out the VD up to 15 kilometers. Back in the ArmA 1 days it was possible to set the VD to 35 Km (I've heard it was possible to go higher but never seen it). With Take On Helicopters you can go up to 20 Km without any scripts. I think it's important to think outside the box. Do not base your judgement on what ArmA and DCS are right now but on what could they become in the future, if time and money are invested with this "linking" idea in mind. That was the point of this poll, see if people wanted to see this investment (at the price of other aspects of the game).

Mr. Peter P, Iam a happy camper! (thats good) I reloaded all files, figured out that I needed to start the game (stupid me) and it all worked "WELL" just like you said would. You are super man when it comes to DCS. Now i will answer you the question why I don't want to run continous screen, well rembure that Iam "OLD SCHOOL" and I thought that I would have to change me screen set up so everytime I loged onto my computer I would be in continuous screen. if I could only have continuous screen while running BlackShark, that would be good. I do plan on updating my system so that I may have up to four screens. There is no way I could write a lua for that, however Iam learning more and more each day. Anyway Thank You very much for all that you have done for me and I hope to be talking to you soon on the forum. Tanks again, deskoilot

Even if it were actually possible, I'd probably rather not want to see them linked. I already think that the DCS Caucuses map is too small. I'd probably go insane from claustrophobia if I was stuck on a minuscule ARMA II map. Not to mention, pretty soon, we'll have battle commander mode available. That will fill in a lot of the missing human-on-the-ground element. Basically, I don't want DCS limited by what is required for a first person shooter. Even if all DCS does is send data to ARMA II, and vice-versa, we'd still be stuck on the same damn horribly tiny map. Instead of ED spending time making themselves able to share data with other games, I'd rather see ED take the time to further develop the rudimentary first-person elements that are already here in DCS. As some examples, you can currently walk around after ejection- this needs to be made to work in multiplayer. Next let us optionally spawn in that state, and to fly, we have to walk up to the jet and climb in. Then, make an FPS-style control set, and give us the ability to shoot our side arm. Slow, individually minor changes, that each add a new gameplay element to the game and have value in and of themselves, that eventually build DCS into supporting first person ground action would be preferable, IMO.

Такое ощущение, что Вы специально не хотите ПАН добавлять, давно ведь просим?

Here is a simple comparison of 1920x1080 and my setup. And I think that there is nothing wrong with the view/drawing distance of airborne targets as long you don't have a greater FOV than 100. (the mission file is attached - and simply press "ESC" at mission-start - because you start airborne 3feet over the ground) Please excuse that I didn't switched off the 85% Jpg compression - so please keep in mind that it appears a little bit clearer when in the simulation as on these pictures. So I have no problem to see airborne targets up to 12km against a clear sky and this is getting much better when the "dots" are moving. And as a conclusion I want to underline that this is not a limitation of the software as some are suggesting - it is a limitation of the hardware we are using. And I fully understand the wish to use labels when you have a 22" screen at 1920x1080 and don't want to fixate your FOV. I disagree with both of your points.

I’ve got a stupid question as well. You launch a semi active missile that has to have guidance from its source, right? Could it possibly be guided by external source?

Не раз уже убеждался, что в ДКС (ЛО) процессор рулит. Жаль только, что он у них многопоточность не поддерживает, ну звук если только. А видюха особо мощная не нужна. Есть исключение - игра на Full HD теликах с диоганалью метр.

Yeah, this first one took a lot of time, but that's more because it was my first and I had to learn Gimp and where to put all the files and everything, but I should get more out faster.

Можно два вопроса к разработчикам... 1. Будет ли перевод кампании про Южную Осетию в ЧА2. А то от техасского английского среди русской техники меня передергивает и летать желание пропадает. 2. Будет ли продолжаться оптимизация движка? У меня 580GTX, процессор 930 @ 3.2 Гц, 6гб оперативки, 7-ка 64 бита. В миссиях где я один, все прекрасно летает, но в кампаниях начинаются неприятные тормоза. хотя графика не выкручена на макс. В эти моменты ни проц и ни видюха не нагружаются наполную. Сами тормоза бывают волнами, после подлета к боевым действиям через некоторое время более менее стихают. Подозреваю что сам движок не справляется с массивом юнитов... что есть печально. Но будем надеятся что работы ведутся.

Very much looking. I've been busier lately so not as much getting done, but want to compile your switch list with my "possible alternatives" list when I release my panel designs.

For combined Arms that will be perfect, for the moment flying vehicle in Arma are really bad and unrealistic, same for AAA and SAM who will engage badly and without priority (will engage tank in priority and who can't aim really aircraft) And in DCS ground vehicle and soldier AI are really bad, see ground AI controlled by Arma and air/anti air controlled by DCS will be the best thing ever. Do JTAC mission with the most realistic ground simulation ever with combined Arms fidelity will be perfect and anyways embody JTAC and any ground unit in combined arms with the ugly graphic engine of DCS will be so bad and be killed cause AI in DCS are so stupid and not matter if we have 100 tank it won't protect us and finally we will die from stupid way in DCS... Ground simulation with Arma and Air simulation with DCS Arma 3 and DCS (next aircraft) with EDGE engine (better than actual but still extremely ugly for ground ops) Thanks for your idea but like always and like every good idea that will not be listen and you will see a long list of people who prefer told you that it can't work rather than find a solution. I hope for us that you will be listen ! Thanks !

Close air support is very much a visual environment, if you can't see both the friendy forces and the enemy with your own eyes (or TGP at the very least) you won't be engaging anything. There are exceptions, aircraft such as B1-B drop purely on coordinates provided by an AFAC/JTAC, but they cannot bring their weapons anywhere near as close as A-10s or other aircraft that have eyes on target. GMR/SAR is great, but it isn't a magic all seeing eye, it has both positives and negatives just like other sensor systems. Take the Apaches in Afghanistan as an example (ours at least, not the US ones), they use their Longbow RADARs quite often, but only as an aid to finding friendly forces & enemy vehicles and then cue the TADS/Mk1 eyeball on to the target. If you're flying an interdiction mission in hostile territory, hunting for enemy forces and taking them out before they can be brought in to the fight and no friendly ground forces are in the area, then yes GMR/SMR can and is used to locate and engage targets. And while the A-10 can be tasked in this role, it can do so quite happily without RADAR. RADAR is expensive and heavy as well as taking up space in the aircraft. When the A-10 was designed, it wasn't possible to fit a viable RADAR system in to the aircraft without loosing the GAU-8, and what would be the point then? The A-10 was designed as a relatively low cost tank buster/CAS aircraft. And had the cold war ever gone hot, it wouldn't have struggled to find targets given the shear numbers of WARPAC armour that would be pouring through the Fulda Gap. Not to mention the fact that they would be spending the vast majority of their missions at very low level due to the SAM/AAA threats, making a RADAR pretty much redundant. And as for the A-10C upgrade, when the primary job of an aircraft is CAS why try fitting a RADAR that it was never designed to have, and wouldn't really add that much to its role?

представляю ЛО в стиле кваки: взлетел, пробегся стрейфом по респе, собрал арму с активками, засек мегу, прошелся отстрелял ракеты, вернулся к респе меги, сожрал, быренько стрейфом до респы врагов, по дороге квад отхватил... хм а че как мод не хило было б :))))

ну что же, придется макнуть гражданина глубже... поле зрения Х-29Т при поиске цели составляет 12°x16°, а при автозахвате головой - 2.1°x2.9°, так о каких танках на 15км и окнах дотов может идти речь, если способность Тубуса-2 сопровождать контрастную цель в 5 раз хуже, чем способность человеческого глаза её найти? и какой танк на расстоянии 15км сможет найти человек на телевизионном изображении с углами 12°x16° и разрешением 500 линий на примерно 400 столбцов, на подвижной платформе с постоянно изменяющимися углами визирования цели? если в следующем сообщении не будет прямого доказательства про применение Х-29Т по подвижным объектам размера "танк" и "окнам дотов", то последует бан. желающие проверить, сделайте картинки видимости техники на расстоянии 15км для углов 12°x16° и попробуйте найти танк или окно дота, её даже не придется "зашумливать" для учета подвижности платформы. предназначена для поражения визуально видимых наземных и надводных целей типа железобетонных укрытий, стационарных железнодорожных и шоссейных мостов, промышленных сооружений, складов, бетонированных взлетно-посадочных полос аэродромов, кораблей и т.д.

Yes it sure as hell supports surround sound! :D It's great!

Hey all! Just a stupid question from me, but does A-10C support any sort of surround sound or is it just limited to stereo? Many thanks!

looks awful and makes me feel sick, but i suppose that's the desired effect.

> But how does one distinguish between significant and non-signficant spaces? Not required. Simply compact all sequences of whitespace (space, tab, carriage return etc etc) into a single space charatecter. Also replace all Lua comments with a single space before this. Once 'normalized' in this way you can then do a bitwise comparison. This is the kind of thing compilers do (normalize space).

Yes very interested, I cross-referenced several of the switches to various suppliers catalogs. For example the CMSP Panel JTSN Switch MS21026-C231 Cross-references to a Eaton SPST 8855K7 with a "C" type locking Bushing (ON - None - |ON) Locked in the lower Keyway position, found on page A57 in their switch catalog. It is a miniature switch with a full-sized toggle. While the switch from Eaton may be costly, a pit-builder could use a standard miniature toggle switch and fabricate a replica locking bushing and toggle arm to fit it. Your work will greatly aid many pit-builders in their endeavors, while they may not say it, they are grateful for the hard work you are doing, I know that I am. So keep up the great work :thumbup:. Direwolf5

Hmm... how would one do this though? One could read the file into a string, and use the rules we know for Lua comments to remove all commented space. But how does one distinguish between significant and non-signficant spaces? Ah wait. I think I might have it. It might be rather easy: file = open(<server's lua file>, 'r') server_lua_string = file:read() server_lua = string.dump(loadstring(server_lua_string)) --[[ the contents of the client's lua file are received over the network and stored in the string variable "client_lua_string" ]] client_lua = string.dump(loadstring(client_lua_string)) if client_lua ~= server_lua then --integrity check failed else --integrity check passed end loadstring compiles a string into Lua, and returns a function you can call that will execute that compiled code. I've never used string.dump, but in theory, I know it's supposed to take a function defined in Lua, and decompile it into a string. So in theory, this code will allow you two integrity check two files, and ignore all comments and insignificant whitespace, because instead of comparing the two files directly, you're comparing only the parts of those files that are significant in Lua. But will it actually work? Will string.dump always return the same string on the same Lua function? And of course, this would probably actually be coded in C, not Lua, but I don't know how the Lua C API works. Maybe I should read that section sometime :) Anyway, like Moa, I also had some ideas for the IC that I think would make it much more flexible and mod-friendly here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1376380&postcount=121

При прямолинейном полете на скорости больше 150км/ч , педали поцентру не стоят (смещены вправо ) . Обычно РППУ отклонена влево , педали вправо ,здесь надо ориентироватся по шарику , он должен быть поцентру , иначе ты летишь боком . Уменя тоже 52й , тример назначен на курок (первое положение, второе огонь) , очень удобно . Надо сменить направление или резкий маневр , зажимаешь тример , лег на курс тример отпустил . Сейчас автопилот работает более агресивно чем в первой ЧА , и после отпускания тримера верт держит курс очень хорошо . Главное . Не ешь жёлтый снег и смотри на "шарик":)

Not necessarily. If anybody can mod in separate avionics for the Bug, it's BMS.

Yeah, while this can definitely be done in the U.S., in Russia... not so much. However, there are other means of fixing such situations in the Third Rome that are a bit more "brute".

I appreciate your comments which assures us that ED is working on a problem. This attack, this hacker, is attack primarily on Fighter Collection and ED business. I wish the attacker could be traced and brought in the court of law for breaching EULA. Nevertheless, please keep working on a problem, I will patiently wait for a proper resolution from Fighter Collection and ED.

Надо купить лицуху и пропатчить вроде так