Leaderboard

Желающие упростить, в настройках сложности без проблем могут наставить соответствующих галочек.

Way back when I was flying more FSX I used to have another pit which was suited for more GA flying. I had put a lot of goflight controllers in to it and it was the radios that I think I liked the most. They were something I used every flight and were the most difficult to use with a mouse or keyboard. Helios has been beyond excellent with my current a10 config but I am now thinking about building some real panels again and I am going to start with the ones that are most awkward to use virtually which are the radios. These panels are just going to be the start, I will produce others in the order that I think is most beneficial to have a real one rather than a virtual one. As we all know stuff like the UFC are prime contenders. There are a few caveats though, I am not a rivet counter in this area so I will work off the information I have and not go out of my way to ensure that a panel is a complete replica down to the exact switch, knob, display etc. What I want to make is something that will lead you to believe that my panel belongs in the a10. If you are used to using the virtual cockpit then you should believe that this panel belongs in there. For example, the AM radio uses mechanical digits, I will use 7 segment displays laid out in the same format as the a10 panel. Mechanical digits would always be replaced with 7 segment displays or the project becomes too much. If I can't get knobs that are exactly the same I hope that you only notice that on closer inspection or referencing a photo. I must admit, I have never liked plugging in a lot of panels in to USB hubs as with the goflight gear so I am looking to create my panels with ethernet interfaces so they can be talked to via tcp/ip. It's quick and easy and you can get a 16 port router for $40 to plug them in to. I am going to make the electronics somewhat generic so that I can put different faceplates on them. I.e. the radio electronics could also be placed behind a radio panel from a baron 58 etc. There are a number of things I need to tie down but in the spare time I will get this panel working and go on to the next. I can't wait until I can tune in my freq's on TARS etc using a real panel :) For your viewing pleasure here is a10 exporting to one of my development boards. Nothing special but it is the start ;) FYI I am using a texas instruments cortex M3 chip. When I decide a couple more details of how I want to mount some components I will get a run of custom pcb's made. One thing I am interested in creating is a standalone CDU with display, also ethernet connected and not using a graphics card port on the pc. I know how to make it all work but I ned the time to tackle it.

I'm somewhat tired of hearing "Colt 1-2", "Enfield 3-1", "Hawg 1-1" etc. all the time. I would like to see "more" Callsigns for Radio Comms. Easiest way might be to integrate the existing NATO-Alphabet from the radio comms, I guess. Just, an idea, but I think easy to implement, since the voice-overs are already in the sim. :thumbup:

разделить данные которые может передавать

Incorrect, Speed IS everything ;) Correct. It is also "not for" the vast majority of people I've talked to. Put up a well-worded poll (such as,"How would you feel about DCS: Su-25 following DCS: Next"- a) Very excited, b) Somewhat excited, c) Neutral, d) Disappointed, e) Very disappointed) and I think you'll see what I mean. I could be wrong, but I think most folks have had enough with low and slow, single-seat tank killers- though I'm sure the community will be a bit more receptive once we have a multirole fighter in our hands. Which is your opinion based on what? I know quite a few folks who, rather than be turned off by two-seaters, would be VERY, VERY excited. In fact, I THINK they out number the folks like you who would be turned off by a two-seater. Keep in mind that ED has introduced active pause, which will allow two-seaters to be easily flown in single player. Also, the side-by-side configuration of the Su-24 and Su-34 would allow you to look over at the other seat's controls very easily. Furthermore, ED could even implement some kind of AI co-pilot, if necessary. And no, the Su-25 is slow. Maybe a hundred knots faster than the A-10, maybe, but true fighter-bombers fly a hundred knots faster than that, and can get massive boosts of power with afterburner for tight turns/missile evasion/supersonic flight/fast climb/etc. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I do believe that I am speaking a viewpoint held by the majority- a) most folks don't want the Su-25, b) At least a very large percentage of the community would be excited by a two seat aircraft.

Не правда! По всему миру техническая поддержка Windows XP переходит в так называемую расширенную фазу, что подразумевает платные обращения в службу поддержки и бесплатные обновления системы безопасности для всех пользователей Windows. Расширенная фаза поддержки Windows XP продлится до апреля 2014 г. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/letter.html

DCS SU25tm Can't stop thinking how awesome this would be.

Имхо тут дело принципа. Симулятор это сначала физика, динамика, авионика... А потом уже все остальное. Хотелось бы конечно чтобы было все красиво, но, справедливости ради, и так все довольно неплохо сделано. Если бы это еще не тормозило даже на мощных компах то цены бы вам не было :) Что лично меня больше всего смутило это отсутствие 3D кокпитов в ближайших планах. Думаю это очень важный момент и я готов ждать ГС3 дольше и платить больше но так чтобы они были.

Looks like you've started to motor your engine but never hit the starter. You can continue to hit the L ENG OPER switch to motor as you've been doing but once it gets to about 30% you should engage the L ENG STARTER by moving the left throttle from the OFF position (fully aft) to the IDLE position (over the hump). Wait for #1 engine to settle then repeat the process for #2. Also, you can skip the motoring and go straight to starting the engine if you want. I'm sure there's a situation where motoring would be warranted, but that's a topic for another thread. EDIT: ARRGH!!! Sniped!

Yes, because anti-shipping, CAS, SEAD, A2A, escort, and everything in between is just boring. Why not do an F-15E instead? Oh yeah...same thing. F-16? Same thing. F-35? Same thing. F-14? Same thing...except more aircraft falling apart for no reason other than its an F-14. So lets make them do an Su-33! Oh yeah....same thing. How about a B-1R study sim instead? Its relatively the same thing, but hey...4 ppl and more bombs!

ИМХО, новая, честная динамика ракет.

Hi Markeebo, I have an i7 920 which I have OC'd to 3.8 on air and I found that I can run the sim quite comfortably with most settings at high. Although I turn off mirrors, heat blur and water at low. I also run two monitors and Helios. If you are OK with the idea of overclocking it is a good way to get a bump in performance. I'm not tech but just googled i7 920 Overclock and there was tons of info and guides. You need to have a good cooling system though, I do not think a stock cooler would suffice. I use a Noctura NH-U12P

My being a tester has nothing to do with it. I'm just a community member like yourself. I do have 20 years of technical experience and have been through a lot of trial and error, since before beta, to get my personal system configed for DCS to my personal taste. My results are good, and others report the same. I'm not going to argue the semantics of SLI, I was using a generalization to articulate the fact that you don't get much out of SLI in alternate or split frame rendering in DCS. I know I use more of my second card if I use it for AA, and I get some more FPS and quality when I do it. nVidia simply fixed the switch in the profile, they made no specific change to allow SLI to be utilized more completely in DCS. I've spoken with them directly. I took my time out to reply to this post to contribute my findings, DratsaB, not out of necessity, but to help out if I could. As I said in my post; feel free to take my advice with a grain of salt and tweak around until you find what works for you (then, if you like... take your time to put together long threads and screenshots to help others get the same results). Potentially helping someone is worth my time, arguing semantics is not. I've said what I can in this thread.. have fun.

Я знаю чего не хватает этому треду. Вот этой ссылки http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/social_networks/138241/ Перед написанием поста в этот раздел я бы заставлял ее читать. Хотя пользователям она не нужна и будет интересна наверное только Chizh'у

Ну как? Модели других самолётов в игре мы видим редко (ганзо/рулёжка). А на свой самолёт мы смотрим постоянно. Я много слышал отзывов (в том числе и от западников.)типа: на хрена нам супермегадетализированная модель Хокуая, и Е-3 если модель Су27 это просто УГ, и не менялась уже 9 лет.

Have a look at the dash one. If the official flight manual, used for actual safety of flight critical flight planning by the real-life pilots flying the aircraft, is not considered a solid source then what is? Note what it says on the very top of the pages concerned regarding the sourcing of the data. It is the ultimate first hand testimony. Every time your LDA (Landing Distance Available) is between 890 and 1470 meters in length, you'll run off the far end if you follow normal landing procedures in the sim under the conditions used for my tests above (20° flaps/speed brakes), whereas you'd be able to stop in the real aircraft (if the flight manual which is, and it bears repeating, what real-life pilots use for their pre-flight planning of whether or not it is safe to land, is to be trusted). Fact remains, the simulated aircraft doesn't do what the real-life aircraft it is simulating does. If you call that a simulator working as well as it should, well, then we'll have to agree to disagree as it would mean a difference in view of what a simulation should be on such a fundamental level that it precludes ever finding common ground. However, from past exchanges I do not believe us to be that far apart in our views of the world so it's all just words. I think it is glaringly obvious that I don't. You'll never find me saying anything of the kind, so please don't suggest I do. In fact, allow me to quote the very post you replied to: Nor have I made that suggestion - the ease with which an issue can be fixed depends entirely on the complexity of the programming containing the flaw. Trust me, that is a fact I'm painfully aware of... do not ask me how many weeks you can spend trying to pinpoint a problem with a simulated turbo prop engine, because I'm still trying to make myself forget how I know... :) Really? If it is that easy, please point me to the thread where a developer or a representative of the developers recognizes this issue? Perhaps the links are in the bug tracker. If I had set it up, they certainly would be. However, that's not accessible to users and the forum search functions are not the greatest tool there is for finding references to a particular issue you are having. That's the core problem when it comes to bug reporting here. Problems are raised in the bug forums and elsewhere, but there is usually no response from the devs. If there is, it can be darn near impossible to find even through extensive searching. Eventually, after the frustration and the complaining threads (with associated badwill, even though I honestly don't think that's much of an issue as ED rightfully have a pretty solid reputation which won't be tarnished easily), someone with bug tracker access steps in and says the issue is known. I understand the situation of the devs. They have jobs to do, and spending their time sifting through these forums shouldn't be too appealing. Frankly, I much rather have them working on the code than in the forums. That's where a cleaned up bug list would be an elegant solution, keeping the users happy and off the developers' back, letting the devs work undisturbed. We'd know not to worry about the issues we see, and ED would not have to worry about issues they are working to resolve being dragged around in public, or the badwill of being perceived as unresponsive to customer complaints when they are in fact hard at work resolving same complaints. ED have a devout testing staff. Some representative of said testing staff could surely spend a couple of hours picking out the items from the bug list which are noticeable to the users and listing them on the wiki, after running it by ED for approval? Wouldn't take too many hours away from the flying. Testing done right is 80% about hard work, being systematic and documenting anyway, so the time spent is only a 20% loss... :joystick: Cheers, Fred

Согласен, сколько, людей столько и мнений. Тут хотелось бы узнать чего хочет ЕД? Варианты ответа: 1 Упросить. 2 Усложнить и приблизить к реалу. 3. Ничего ни делать и продать одну и ту же игру третий раз чуть чуть улучшив графику перенеся в мир а-10 самолеты, будем честно смотреть на вещи, из ГС1?. 4...свой вариант развития событий... Какой вариант правильный?

Хорошо, ты вот считаешь что ЛОКОН это середина. Но кто-то считает, что нужно усложнить некоторые вещи, например сделать более реальную навигацию, ввести ограничения (как говорилось выше), а кто-то наверно считает, что наоборот нужно упростить.

nik-29c с каких это пор в батл филд 3 хороший движок ?

ИМХО БВБ не должен поменяться, если я не ошибаюсь Р-73 можно пускать на любых перегрузках и маневрах, а вот возможность пуска ракет средей дальности уже подвергается некоторым ограничениям.

Под ХР выдает ошибку :( В любом случае спасибо!!!

Держат и не один. Те серверы, что у провайдеров в стойках. Все знают столько виндовс 7 стоит денег. ЗЫ: Спасибо. Вы молодцы!

Почему же - вне закона? Далее мое ИМХО. Есть версия (моя, а может еще чья та), что при разработке игры (графики) сами создатели в жизни землю не видели с воздуха (или крайне мало). Соответственно рисовали наземные текстуры основываясь на просмотре различных видеозаписей. Дело в том, что есть огромная разница между "наблюднением/смотрением/видением" из ЛА (в жизни) и "наблюднением/смотрением/видением" видео снятого с ЛА. Зум в данном случае устраняет эту разницу.