Leaderboard

Some people have had questions about my TIR Setup, and I have made this video to show how TIR is setup and tuned, using the A10 profile as an example.

F-15 "Silent Eagle" interactive cut-away: http://www.flightglobal.com/cutaways/military/boeing-f-15/cutaway/

Во-первых у тебя в настройках управления ГС2 должен появится столбец для ВиртуалДжойстик. Вот ссылка на ППМаус, слева в верху "Файл-Загрузить" https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4JW3ltNgS92a054S3gyNFZRak9LUXQ0MlpzNVlGdw Оба файла должны лежать в одной папке. Запускаешь, на верху три вкладки с настройками: Мыш горизонт, Мышь вертикаль, Колесо и еще вкладки отвечающие за кнопки. Чтобы настроить колесо мыши открой третью вкладку, увидишь два столбца со строками в которых выпадают различные настройки. В левом предлагается выбрать когда будет работать ось - всегда или с нажатым модификатором. Выбирай "always". В правом соответственно выбираешь нужную ось, ось 2 increases. Внизу еще есть параметр Маус Вил Степс, что-то вроде чувствительности. С другими осями думаю разберешься, есть вкладка Тест Джойстик там все изменения отображаются. В ГС2 этому параметру соответствует ось Зет. Потом обязательно сохрани свой профиль, во время игры программа должна быть запущенна, она запускается с дефолтными настройками по этому каждый раз нужно загружать свой профиль.

No, that's the problem, you can't just add ditches and bank like that. It's not about man power but about performances = grid and cell size. Basicly a map is made of x amount of cell and in order to get acceptable performances you have to find a balance between the size of the cell and the amount of cell In a game like ArmA the cells are quite small, allowing some smooth terrain variations => nice round hills tops (~~~~~) In DCS those cells are a lot bigger => "saw shaped" hills tops ( /\/\/\ ). You can find some perfect example in ArmA 2. -Proving Ground, the 1Km² map provided with the PMC DLC, has a really small cell size => a lot of tight but smooth variation in the terrain rendering. - Normandy map (23.000Km²) made by the community, big cell size => no ditches nor banks, closer to what we have in DCS. Well I just can't play any mission on Proving Ground, the hit on performances is just too big but I have no problem playing huge D-Day missions on the Normandy map, with 10k view distance. Really it isn't about man power. Yes, it'd possible to create a 300.000Km² map as detailled as ArmA 2 maps but only 10 people on earth could afford to buy a computer to run such a game. So it's all about finding the good balance for optimal performances. And that's where lies the main problem : this balance isn't the same for a FPS or for a flight sim. An engine made to fit one type of game might be completely unable to fit another one. Terrain rendering is one thing but what about AIs ? What about animations ? etc. The amount of work to turn a flight sim into a FPS (& vice versa) is tremendous. That's where this linking technology really shines. It allows you to connect 2 differents games using 2 differents engines made for 2 differents purposes without any dramatic concessions. As I said earlier I have no doubts both studios are capable of improving their own universe on their own. I just see it as a waste of ressources. BIS and ED are the best at what their doing, they have no competitor, no ones even try to compete with them ! (Well Codemaster actually did and we all know how it ended) You know, it's like a puzzle and each studio owns the pieces the other studio is missing. There are only 2 solutions : A) Both studios create for scratch those pieces. B) They cooperate. I don't deny this technology would be hard to put up but once it'd be done you would "instantanetly" enjoy best of both series.

Frazer, that is awesome. :notworthy: