zokier

Rolling... Donation made to The Jon Egging Trust Confirmation Number: 98113113CP6734257

Daily WTF from Syria (via Al-Jazeera): http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/20126288759114562.html

Actually afaik ALDEGA was correct. While Windows can access the whole 32bit 4GB memory space, a single application under 32 bit Windows cannot have *easily) more that 2GB memory, as the other 2GB of memory space is allocated to the kernel. This behavior is somewhat configurable, and applications can request more memory via some extensions. But imho both ways are rather kludgy/hacky workarounds for inherent limitations of the 32bit platform.

seriously, you guys. that cpu costs like over 800 euros around here. and is capable of running 12 threads simultaneously (yes, i know, hyperthreading is not same as the real thing). Is Warthog really that much multithreaded?

Found this interesting sim in development: http://combathelo.blogspot.com/ Apparently it tries to model Apache. Anyone got more info? Homepage maybe?

From what I gather, it was meant to be a high AoA/low speed maneuver, but one of the engines broke, and, well, results are visible.

Print it to more than one sheet?

Too bad Play.com has totally dropped the ball and has taken over a month to ship my copy of Arma2 :/

I'm planning to upgrade my current CPU as it doesn't keep up with new games, and DCS runs bit too slowly for my taste. I currently have Intel e2160, 2x1G of cheapo DDR2, a P965 motherboard, and Radeon HD4850. I was thinking to go for AMD as they seem to rule the low-end markets. But I'm not sure of the rest. AMD has just released cheap quad core Athlons that seem quite nice (AMD Athlon II X4 620), but I'm not sure if their single-threaded performance is good enough. Then I have heard rumors that some cheap dual-core CPU's can be unlocked to be quad-cores, that seems kinda neat. And dual-core would have far better single-threaded performance than quads. And then there is the question of cache. I don't think that it really matters that much, but still, it would seem kinda silly that it would be the main differentiating feature between high-end and low-end if it didn't matter. AMD's sockets seem bit strange to me, they apparently have AM2, AM2+, and AM3. If I have understood correctly AM2 is for DDR2 and AM3 is for DDR3, right? DDR3 doesn't seem to have large performance advantage, and I could save few euros by going AM2/DDR2 route. Especially if I reused my old RAM, even if its bit slow. On the other hand DDR3 probably would be more future-proof, allowing easier upgrading. And with DDR3 I could then get bit better RAM and try my luck with over-clocking. tl;dr: Quad/dual-core, cache, AM2/AM3? :helpsmilie:

I think I agree with you here. I know already that OFP2 will be vastly different from OFP (and Arma1/2 which I consider mostly as the same game with new bugs), but it can be still a good game. It's not like OFP is the only good game in existence, and any game that isn't OFP is bad. Yes, it's bit silly to call it OFP2, but hey, name doesn't make a game worse or better, it's the content that matters. What I hope most is that it would similar to the original Ghost Recon, in style and feeling. I still play it sometimes, solo or coop with my friends, and its great fun.

DCS: Warthog is supposed to have more detailed ground, especially the Nevada training grounds. There has also been hints of better clouds. AI will probably still be the weak point.

i5 looks lovely. I shouldn't be looking at reviews, they just make me want to upgrade, and I don't have the money.... Maybe if I pawned my TV.... Looks like a single core from i5 would be about as speedy as my current dualcore, and it has four of those frakking things. That would mean that I could double my fps in DCS:BS. And maybe try out OFP2 when it comes out. And ARMA2. And get hardware virtualization.... :drool:

AFAIK Steams protection system isn't very strong, and that's why many games have additional protection systems(Securom etc). So even if DCS would be available in Steam, that wouldn't mean that we'd get rid of StarForce. Also afaik indie devs (like ED is) get better deals from Steam, but I'd assume that ED has already asked for a quote if they considered it. Must say that as a customer I have been happy with Steam, and have purchased many games from it. Especially week-end sales are great.

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: If it's easy to get required data from DCS and there is demand for it, then yes. BUT: most improvements what I'll do will be based on the input from you, the community. If I think that there are no users, or if I think that the users are content, I have very little motivation to develop this software any further. So if you want something, ask for it. If you use this, it would be nice to hear from you, and all comments are welcome, both positive and negative. And if you are versed in Python and/or Lua, feel free to send in patches :) It's probably the same error what Chip had. If you run dcs_mumble from a cmd-prompt you should be able to get the error message. As for why that error appears, I have no idea. This is my first touch on dbus, but my guess would be that Mumble doesn't respond to my dbus-requests properly. I'm developing this on Windows 7 x64, which is quite similar to Vista. I'll try if I can reproduce the bug. Thanks. It's nice to hear that someone finds this useful.

btw I have set up a server containing all the frequencies at mumble.zokier.net, port 61684, password blackshark. Feel free to use it

You tested it in multiplayer and it actually worked? nice :) Did the large amount of channels cause any problems for you?

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/17563 AMD demoed some games running with 6 (six!) 30" monitors, total resolution 7680x3200. When we are going to see that monster with Black Shark? :pilotfly: Even native, highres triplehead would be awesome, and bit more affordable

shameless selfpromotion: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=44834

I made small set of scripts etc to integrate DCS:BS and Mumble, an open source, high quality VoIP -software. It simply changes channel in Mumble when you select a frequency in R-800. Read the readme for more information, I'm going to bed now. Lets see tomorrow how it takes off. http://zokier.net/stuff/dcs_mumble.zip I hope I didn't miss any files or something else important and/or stupid. (It's 5am here...) README.txt

..and now I'm building mumble-integration (similar to this one) instead of getting a good night sleep. Actually manged to get frequencies out of DCS, and controlling mumble seems to work fine, so now i need just some more glue. Partly because of my lack of sleep, I now have about 9162 channels in my local mumble server, one for each frequency in R-800. Of course it would be awesome if all this could be done server side instead of client side, but that would require some help from ED (wink wink), to get frequencies from all clients. btw spinter i hope you don't mind me "stealing" your idea. I'll create my own thread when i get something releasable created.

Interesting. How do you get the radio frequency change from DCS?

+1 for coop campaign

The question is not "why not do something", but "why do something". What would integrating simple voip to DCS add what DCS+Mumble as separate have not currently, and are those things worth the resources ED needs to do the integration? It's not like I wouldn't want even a simple voip, but if I had to choose between basic voip and let say for example collidable trees, I'd pick trees, and even godlike entities like ED have only limited amount of resources/manpower and lots of things to do. On the other hand realistic radio/comm-system would increase the level of realism so much(at least if it would be used by players) that it seems more important. So my point is that ED should aim for full realism from the beginning, but if possible plan implementation so that you can release something not-so-realistic while you are perfecting it. Imho ED shouldn't waste resources doing something that wouldn't eventually be "perfect" Of course this all is only my humble opinion, and I'll be happy with anything you release anyways. I hope that this post made any sense, it's getting bit late here.

Ideally, yes, DCS should have integrated voip, but I'm not convinced if currently it would add enough extra value to warrant the extra work integration and maintenance requires. Simulation of real radio systems would be cool, but imho it would be too cumbersome to be actually used by most players, and voip without users is kind of pointless. I haven't yet studied the Ka-50 comms system so maybe its easier than what I think it is. Maybe having (server-side) option of "casual" and "realistic" radio would be best alternative, "casual" being simple one channel per side and maybe a global channel. Having realistic radio would get more important when we get more modules, ie. if we get human controlled FAC.

So is the manual really available? :O (from TFC site)