Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. There are idiots in ALL multiplayer environments. Ever gone a round in a public Battlefield / ARMA server? It's an exercise in frustration. With friends, or on a well moderated server that emphazises teamwork, it's a totally different experience. A well designed mission would have a much smaller engagement radius for the ground troops. You could have the base near the FLOT. Or where this would be unrealistic, you could have the option to spawn "en route".
  2. Current hardware is capable of handling such a sim, IMO. When flying the Hog, the CPU is busy with : flight, avionics, weapons, AI, mission / campaign ( and anything else I may have omitted ) When driving a tank, the CPU would be busy with much of the same, if not less. You would not be flying the Hog and driving a tank simultaneously. Of course, compromises would have to be made. The terrain looks decent at altitude, but it would look terrible ( by today's standards ) when driving a tank. Some additional graphics routines could be employed to spice up the visuals when on the ground, but that would steal development time from new aircraft modules which just 'fit well' with the current terrain. Personally, I would be very happy with a study tank / Tunguska / e.t.c sim on the current terrain. ED just need to: a) have the desire to broaden their horizons beyond aircraft simulation. b) have similar military contracts / detailed information for tanks. c) determine whether the market is there to make it a viable project.
  3. Found an existing torrent. http://www.mininova.org/tor/540862 Hop on.
  4. How about delivering it via BitTorrent? That would spread the bandwidth consumption around as downloaders would also be uploading. http://dessent.net/btfaq/#maketorrent
  5. Even if it is meant to feel like "travelling on a rollercoaster"? I guess those multi million dollar F-16 simulators must be modelling the FM incorrectly. Real F-16 pilots ( and laymen who have been lucky enough to get some stick time in a real simulator ) give the FM a thumbs up. I guess they are all lying/biased.
  6. http://store.yahoo.com/graphsim/fa4alfo.html :D
  7. There are currently 42 pilots in the Lomac lobby according to the Hyperlobby website. Forgotten Battles has 559 and surprisingly, Pacific Fighters has 15 :confused:
  8. Battlefield 2 demo goes well over 1 Gigabyte of physical Memory with all high settings. I shudder to think what the full game will use.
  9. :confused: If Plane A is superior to Plane B resulting in Plane A beating Plane B 70% of the time, what difference does it make if you model this statistically instead of in real time? The result will be the same. The difference is that the former method is far more efficient and thus allows the game to cope with many more units. If I'm flying along with Plane A and Plane B duking it out beyond my sensor and visual range, why should I care what they are doing? Their actions cannot affect me in any way.
  10. The amraams are porked in all versions, past and present.
  11. Squashing of all outstanding bugs from 1.0 to present, however small. Improved AI.
  12. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/budget_lcd_roundup_0405/ Closing on CRTs but not quite there yet.
  13. If possible, could someone make a tiny video of the problem?
  14. http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjMy
  • Create New...