Demongornot

My favorite aircraft, i don't know if i prefer the Hornet or the Super Hornet, both are awesome. High Alpha perspective, yeah !!! We absolutely need vapor effect on wings and vibration in cockpit during hard turn with this big flying bug !!! I just hope it will be release before the F15C cause we already have the FC3 version. I think it will be release in the same time than Nevada, but both Nevada and next fixed wing US Aircraft was already announced since a lot of time and take a huge delay, i just hope we will see the Hornet before 2014 or Q3/Q4 2013, but sadly i don't really think it will be release for this summer :/ Hurry up and take my money ! :joystick::D From Dos Gringos : I wish I had the alpha of a hornet Living to fight slow when others scorn it When I can still pitch and roll That other guy's going out of control I wish I had the alpha of a hornet

Sorry to bring back to live this "old" thread. I think in fact its a total hazardous mix between all explanation. Maybe a resonance between several sound. From one side without open gun port the mustang don't to this sound at high AOA, in another side other mustang still do it in high AOA with gun port, sure things the gun port have an important role. The air intake also, at high AOA the sound are not constant and pitched higher than the rare occasion where we hear it from a level flight. At high AOA its for sure the gun port, gun the blade can also help this sound, and at level its the radiator, but during high AOA i'm sure its a resonance between sound from supercharger, gun port, prop and radiator, all of them have an important role, that why with one of this element removed its rare to hear it but not impossible. The prop and the supercharger have a secondary role, but it still important and its cause of both of them that we can hear this sound without gun port, together they do the same effect with the radiator than the couple : gun port -> radiator. The constant sound with always the same pitch was the radiator and the sound who are some time pitched really high (depending of the AOA) come from the gun port. Cause of the number of gun ports, they don't need sound from radiator, supercharger or prop, but the radiator need sound from prop, supercharger or even gun port for scream, cause i think its a sound induced resonance. All Mustang have the "same" gun port, they don't have so much difference, its always the same caliber after all, but the ventral radiator are different depending of the Mustang, the Reno one have a flat and small one like you can clearly see it here : http://www.airportjournals.com/Photos/0810/X/0810021_10.jpg Like the gun port it is at 90° of the "gun cross" unlike other mustang where the radiator are inclined : http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/baron_inchcape1/images/818/north-american-p-51d-mustang-susy-flying.jpg For this Reno's Mustang only the speed count cause the radiator intake are in the right condition for do a sound, for other Mustangs with inclined radiator intake it need sound resonance from engine for be hear and its only in rare conditions, high AOA help it. Its still a theory but my conclusion is : 1. Gun ports make the bigger sound, the whistle sound who have different pitch regarding AOA, cause of the number of canon they is (almost?) always one who whistle and cause of the size and the number the pitch can change. 2. With or without gun port when the radiator's air intake are flat the sound are more a problem of speed but a really light AOA can in rare conditions amplified the sound but it will not be loud as the gun port's sound, the sound are always at the same pitch. 3. With or without gun port when the radiator's air intake are tilt the sound can only be hear in a certain AOA and speed and only in certain conditions who cause a sound resonance between the air intake itself and prop/supercharger and its whistle, a little more low pitched than the gun port's whistle sound but still the same, its louder than the flat air intake direct sound (who can't enter in resonance i think) but not as the gun port's sound and its always at the same pitch... Don't blame me if i'm wrong its still a theory based on...nothing but its better than a dispute between everyone ^^" And it can be right, who know...

This sound is beautiful ! Thanks for explain everyone ! i have always wonder know where it come from We can clearly hear it in this short F100 engine test video :

Vapor sonic cone its like vapor on wing and ground crew, it was asked since several year and we still wait it, probably another sim will coming and give us this before ED will finally decide to create this effect ask since a lot of time, mainly when we know that it will take some hours/minute for them to do it,not for the ground crew but for the vapor cone at transsonic speed just depending of the basic weather and the vapor on the wing depending of the speed/AOA and also depending of the basic weather will not be long to create for this team of several people with all SDK/Tools for do this... We have the stupidly almost invisible wingtips vortex, but something that everyone want and who are clearly visible like vapor over the wing was not implemented and seem to be not scheduled for a looooooong(cat) time... Even the actual contrail are bad, they start inside the reactor, and when you do a flight with an high AOA at high altitude (low speed or high angle turn) you see it pass through your aircraft, and a real contrail start some meter after the reactor, like this : http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/6259/contrail01ebbr2801064yi.jpg And you can ever dream but that all cause you will never have NICE effect like this http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo261/captjsclark/130contrail.jpg So basically regarding what its actually do and the answer (excuse?) you get, sorry for the bad new but any vapor effect was apparently not planed before long time (never?)

Too many answer i'm so lazy to all answer, so, for about useless debat and a long post for proof you (all) wrong, i just will say : OK And i still hope it not will be the F-15C or the F-16 and hope for the E or an Hornet, only air to air will be boring...

Yes but DCS its not the center of the universe, its just the more recent sim, that the only credit it have, cause its far to be good, physic are nice for aircraft, but its the only good point, a lot of people use Falcon, Free, Open, BMS, and they for sure want to experiment something else than always the F-16, and this aircraft its nice but that's all, its a standard jet, nothing exceptionable, even the French Mirage 2000 its better, maybe the second US aircraft after the first new US jet fighter can be the Falcon, but in first choice, it will be a bad choice...So basically like i said DCS its not the center of the universe, that Falcon can connect or not with DCS we already have an F-16, and for a really low price, and BMS 4.32 physic are not perfect but it was really updated, the only credit for the physic that DCS have its cause it was modern, DCS 10 year ago will be totally obsolete now, and if any other company make a new simulator who coming for 2013/2014, DCS will be obsolete, every new sim its more realistic, avionic, physic and everything, and for me DCS its far to be realistic for a lot of reason, and BMS don't need 3 patch par hours cause it was bug less, i have never see any bug in BMS, every good coder will told you that when new patch add more bug, its cause the coder was bad, and the AI in BMS was better. And a lot of people like me don't use the multiplayer, its hard to find serious people, and its full of bug, a lot of time more bug than single player. For Single Seat its mean nothing now, look at the Huey, it will permit 4 people, Pilot, copilot (i'm not sure but i think so), and two gunner, and also if we forget the possibility to use an AI as copilot/pilot, no one prevents us to be alone in the cockpit, all functions are available to the pilot, the RIO just help the pilot, but that's all. You know the real utility of the RIO ? -> http://militaryhumor.net/out-of-flares :D And the true question it is, if the next aircraft was the F-15C, why the FC3 Eagle don't have any AFM ? the next aircraft was already prepared since long time, maybe it begin before the release of the A10C Beta, ED always work to several aircraft in the same time, basically an AFM can be already done since long time, and it was a waste of time (and money fos customers) to make the F-15C the only good point of FC3 and after make DCS F-15C, FC3 into DCS for my its a really bad idea, its a lot of time simpler to use FC3 aircraft than DCS aircraft, actual DCS Aircraft have NO WAY to do dogfight. If the P51 was locked and a missile coming at him, the pilot have no way to know it, if a fighter try to shot with gun the A10C or the KA-50, how the hell you can expect to survive, mainly with fighter simple to use ? And what change ? Ricardo cockpit ? yeah haha, paid for something free, other aircraft than the F-15 ? they are ALL already available with FC2, 3D cockpit ? don't kidding me, i'm sure if ED give SDK tool to community we can already have 3D cockpit for ALL FC aircraft, and a lot of aircraft with the same quality and every other FC3 aircraft, but ED don't care, missile physic ? yeah that's cool, full of bug, and basically i'm sure it was also available for DCS itself with patch 1.2.2, all change you see in FC3 from FC2 its just all the possibility of DCS that FC profit, FC3 its just a pack of aircraft, and landing ? its just a tweak, it don't justify 40$, far from it, its a ridiculous cost for a simple aircraft pack without even any new aircraft, for me FC3 its a bad joke, that's all, and for the SU-25, just use the 25T without systems and you get your 25, its the same idea than use the A10A for testing the A10C mission anyways, it follow your logic, and i don' talk about DCS F15, i talk about DCS F15C, the E will be a good choice. And for your stone age cockpit you have the P51D. And don't forget that 3 party have no idea of what ED next aircraft will be, and 3 party was coming AFTER ED decide the next aircraft, and how can you know that some 3 party aircraft will not be canceled, after all its what happen to the Nevada map initially expected to be created by 3 party...And imagine if both 3 Party F-15E are far to be realistic, complex but not realistic ? its possible... And the same question, if ED already done an updated the F-15C with FC3, why the hell they planed to make DCS F-15C, why not make people the possibility to enjoy Russian advanced aircraft with 3D cockpit (rather than make us paid for a free addon) for have a nice adversary for the futur DCS F-15C the time that the second aircraft, maybe a Russian coming ? And since all the time we wait FC3, why the hell we have only the F-15C with 3D cockpit ? if even all aircraft have 3D cockpit and the jet engine sound was not the ridiculous old one from LOMAC and if f....ng visual effect of vapor while transonic and high alpha was implanted (it don't took long time to do some vapor effect, for ED who have all SDK/Tools it can take some hours/minutes) I would have bought FC3, but actually haha funny joke but no thanks...Mainly with all new bugs... If the next aircraft was supposed to be the F-15C, the FC3 F-15C will have had the AFM.

Yeah i have think about this me too. A10A -> A10C F-15C -> F15E I hope it will be the Hornet (it can't be the super hornet, i'm sure of that cause of something ED say) or the F-15E, but i hope it don't will be any F-16 or F-15C, F-16 we already have too many simulator for this and we also have a lot of free things for some of them, like Falcon BMS 4.32. And the F-15C Really ? what bad choice ? we already stuck to do only air/ground for the moment with 2,5 aircraft, you now want to be stuck to air combat only ? F-15E can be great cause its a MULTIROLE, available for ground strike, also for air combat and a lot of other task that A10C and F-15C together can't do, possibility to have a payload bigger than the A10, and he still have the dogfight and maneuverability of the F-15C, and actually a 3party develop an hardcore version of the F22 Raptor, so no, the F-15E was NOT too modern, mainly when we know that the C upgrade for the A10A its more recent than the F-15E. Anyways if it was an F-15C i think i don't will buy it, like i do for FC3, same for any F-16, we already have falcon for this. Its time for the Hornet or the Strike Eagle, we already have the F-15C with FC3, its not an hardcore version, but its enough, cause basically, FC3 its already overpriced for almost nothing (no new aircraft and a small update of already existent things, even the FREE SU-25T are more advanced and complex than all FC3 aircraft together cause of the AFM) and basically the 3D cockpit of the F-15C its the ONLY big change, importing aircraft from FC2 to DCSW its not a big change, its just an importing...And if the next aircraft was the F-15C, basically a lot of people who have buy FC3 only for the F-15 will finally have buy FC3 for nothing if an F-15C hardcore coming, its like if after the first flaming cliff the first hardcore aircraft was a SU-25T, why buy FC1 then ? F-15E or Hornet maybe, but F-15C i hope no, and its too many restrictive, and everything you can do/feel with the F-15C you can do with the F-15E.

@ EtherealNFor the distance as we look the screen yes, human eyes don't have more than 15000x15000 "pixel" and in fact it was no more than 11000*11000 for black and white, 3162*3162 for the color, so yes in the area where we looking a screen, the screen have more definition than human eyes, that why you see and image and not a group of dot, screen are create for give today better definition than what eyes can see. The only difference between a screen and the eyes was the field of view, but we don't need giant field of view for game/simulator. And you just use another example of the same problem, if the sim had a good scale, we would not need to use zoom for see instruments, maybe an option like : distance of the screen -> screen size to answer to calculate automatically a correct scale or make like FPS game design for human eyes, i have a 29" screen 1920*1080 and i was forced to use zoom to see what is write in the cockpit, and i was close to my screen, i don't need to do it in any other game, only simulation. @EtherealN & ogata321 And i talk about FPS engine SCALE and not rending details, and if we can't max it out with any computer (including mine who are really powerful) the problem don't come from customer's computer but from the graphic engine, but i will not talk again about it. So yes if we try to reproduce human FOV it will give bad result, we need an FOV directly CONTENT like if the screen was a single glass that we look through, that why i talk about a correction depending of the distance and the screen size. And basically more logical FOV will give less power needed, maybe a little more hard for people who don't have Track IR or Free Track, but for people who have it, that will not change something except more realism, more immersion and finally less calculate needed cause of smaller view FOV, correct optimization can finally take advantage of this and give bigger texture resolution for compensate the difference...

I think zoom must DON'T exist for two reason : First : i don't know why but people always unzoom and create this ugly microscopic cockpit effect where completely twisted when we turn the "head", like (for example) at the end of this video where the guy unzoom at an unrealistic way or this http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/jan09/BSrps05.jpg and it was ugly, everything look small and its stupidly impossible, except if we turn Binoculars in the wrong side. Two : ok pilot have binoculars but will NEVER use it while strafe on a target, you need one hand on throttle and the other on the stick, so zoom when we strafe or in dogfight give a stupidly unrealistic advantage. Why people use zoom ? (i have never use it except for sometime see the too small letter in the cockpit) Simply case like i have say since a lot of time (and people was totally accustom to simulation size and don't notice it now) the size are TOTALLY and 100% unrealistically fail ! Everything are small for compensate a big map, i have NEVER be able to judge correctly of distance in the sim, i can't see if object is 10 Km or 50Km cause size are totally wrong, that why i always talk about FPS game, they are made for embody an HUMAN with EYES and not a camera, when i look car or boat in the game it look like RC model and NOT like a real huge things, the scale DON'T represent real world. It look like this http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/3146625047_b79b53b4f5.jpg or like this http://www.yerres.fr/image/CADRE_DE_VIE/urbanisme/maquette-ville.jpg but certainly not like this http://www.etaag.fr/_uploads/images/pages/232.jpg like this http://cliophoto.clionautes.org/galleries/GEOGRAPHIE/FRANCE/Centre-Est/Rhone-Alpes/TN-Grenoble.jpg or like this http://www.r2k-architecte.com/datas/projets/images/548.jpg And if you can't see the difference its exactly what i have said : you are accustom to this, EVERYONE who never see aircraft simulation will say the same thing : it look like SimCity, now only cause of graphic rending but cause of small scale. If we are forced to use zoom its cause the scale effect are TOTALLY FALSE and that everything look TOO small compare to real life, including cockpit. Before implement binocular, two things must be do : Disabled the zoom AND make a graphic engine or rework the actual for give a credible visual scale, and simulate human eyes rather than camera, and after this, binocular must be something that we have to TAKE (don't teleport instantaneously in our eyes, we have a develop of few seconds before be able to use it) and unlike eyes, the view vibrates, cause unlike hands, eyes have a scanning rate over what human body can resist in term of vibration, so difference between eyes and camera/binocular : Eyes see object vibrate and the body can move or vibrate and we see it but the view itself still stable and don't vibrate, the eyes mechanically compensate it and the brain do the rest by stabilizing the perception. Camera or binocular are not stable (even with stabilizer). So : necessity to zoom come from a big error of realism in the sim, zoom must don't exist and binocular must be implemented in a realistic way and it must be implemented only after the scale error was corrected.

+1 but also MOARR realism on the deck, a carrier will never be empty like we see in DCS during operation... And more optimized carrier, what i want its like this one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucRxQGJ_0jA The USS Nimitz (addon) for FSX have a NICE deck with a lot of aircraft and animated crew and also rescue chooper, and the funny part was that it take less FPS than the empty carrier of DCS. Test is simple, in both DCS and FSX flight over the sea 3 times with the same aircraft at the same location and try again but with the carrier added in the mission editor for DCS and the command for spawn it in FSX, the FPS difference between no carrier and with carrier will be bigger in DCS than FSX, regardless that the carrier of FSX is a lot more complex and beautiful...Optimization is needed !

Hi everyone, i will delete my personal facebook account and with this one i will leave my actual page of DCS A10C : http://www.facebook.com/pages/DCS-A10C-Warthog/213475292002987 I look for someone, capable of become the new owner, who will keep this page active, help people by answer to question, post things about DCS World -> A10C and other module like official new, or tips, real life A10C video or info, sometime post screenshots or video of mission, tips, tuto, and also keep doing some advertising to people who like aviation and who want to know a new sim, a page who don't will post stupid pub or useless fun image but who still look clean and mainly focus on the A10C and DCS World. Only serious people who want to do it, not for become famous or for self things but for the community, someone who have the time to do it, a Moderator/Team tester or ED Team member will be perfect. Thanks.

It beat also Metro 2033 i have one of the most powerful computer rig available and i play Metro 2033 without lag but i lag with DCS World and i don't turn everything to max unlike Metro 2033... I can only support you for what you write where but sorry for you bro i have already try and no one want to hear it... I have finally forget my own post about performance and graphic engine, i have say a lot of possibility of optimization and i have even propose a new graphic engine to ED team based on holography who can show real photorealistic in real time for low performance cause of low polygon number and with huge view range...Result : they don't care about... I will keep my optimization and my graphic engine idea and for the future make myself some stuff cause is useless to loose idea for people who don't care about... Thrust me, all hope is gone for wait graphic like BF3 or Arma 2, i have already show some graphic engine who already work well and who show 100 time better graphic than DCS World and people keep told me that better graphic its impossible, funny ? We have new 3D model more than what we need and who are finally too many detailed from one side and old 3D model from LOMAC at the other side and no optimization was planed cause they try to optimize general performance without make real optimization like : if we flight above huge cloud we don't need to calculate in real time the ground, or optimize for the max aircraft speed the graphic engine (actually with camera who don't move or who cross the map in less than 10 seconds i don't have any FPS difference, proof of total missing of any optimization) and the ground color will never be realistic. The only thing you will to with this message its to enter in a circle of several week of fight for people who will never listen you and still think that better its impossible. For your own time and health don't try to talk about graphic engine quality and performance in any simulator like FSX, X Plane, DCS and other :D

Yes but everyone seem to imagine that the 1.2.2 will be a huge change from the 1.2.1, maybe the 1.2.2 will be just a SMALL bug correction and the biggest part for make 1.2.1 compatible with FC3 and also with the future UH-1H Huey, like we have already several update done by the autoupdater the 1.2.2 will maybe be a small update, its just a number, that don't mean that it will be a huge update of 1 Go, just a compatibility for huge new feature who will turn the 1.2.1 into 1.2.2, for sure its only speculation but i'm sure that 1.2.2 its the official version compatible with FC3 and final version of CA And nice for this one, but Ricardo HD cockpit for which aircraft ? The Ricardo HD cockpit for the KA-50 its one of the addon i have try to installing but who don't work cause of the new mods logic and i have find nowhere how to installing mods (and like if the answer where in the forum the topic i have created for ask a clear answer was simply moved)... I hope more nice mods will be integrated into DCS World (but ED, please think about people unlike me who have a small computer rig and who need lighter cockpit) And like cichlidfan and Nate--IRL-- its an single module who contain several aircraft, that why i compare it with CA, its like CA but rather than ground vehicle it add new aircraft, and, i hope maybe a new one that ED keep secret for the surprise but i don't think so...

From this : (+1 mwd2) And cause the next patch, the 1.2.2 will coming soon and initially FC3 was expected for September but report to October, so it will coming this month with the patch 1.2.2 and i don't think we will reach the 1.2.3 this month. And except if something goes wrong FC3 come really soon, its a question of week/days.

FC3 will be a module for DCS World and multiplayer compatible, it will coming with the vertion 1.2.2 of DCS World this month if everything going well, so yes FC3 will "fit into" DCS World like CA or A10C, KA-50, P-51D and UH-1H. FC3 will adding middle level simulation (simplified) aircraft, the SU-25, the Mig-29 the SU-27 the SU-33, the A10A and the F-15C, 3D cockpit but not clickable and simplified avionic, the flight model will be better than the one in FC2 but i don't think it will be the AFM except for the SU-25. Read this : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1541527#post1541527 The main thing FC3 will give to DCS World will be the plane, considerate FC3 like an aircraft pack for DCS World, same level than the SU-25T for the SU-25 and better level than other FC2 aircraft for the rest, also it will change air to air flight dynamic and add some features. And about : "Resource Manager that adds logistics control to missions. Expanded theatre of operations map into eastern Georgia. Countless other improvements in the areas of the mission editor, special effects, new models, improved terrain detail and AI." I don't know if they talk about what DCS World already have compare to FC2 or if it was new feature for DCS World. But basically FC3 will be like CA except that it will be new aircraft and now new ground vehicle. I hope u have help you.

Its not only winter texture who need to be changed :megalol: I know i get out ->[] :D Edit : +1 Britchot

1.2.1 Mods Please can we get a CLEAR and SIMPLE tutorial with example of how/where to install mods with DCS World 1.2.1 I have place several mods in my savegame and nothing happen. If someone who know how to install it please write it here to avoid to people 4 page of reading from other post (who don't really and clearly told how to install mods anyways)... Thanks !

Every mod i have install was moved to _backup.00x" folder and was deleted from the rest ok i agree but we have to put it again in the main folder or it work from the backup folder ? And what about modified big files like 3Go of texture from the "terrain" folder...I will need to wait that the auto updater download at slow speed 3Go ? And yes i can do it but i don't have to correct error from game creators, and maybe people who use several simulator think the graphic rending was nice, but EVERYONE who see a simulator for the first time will told you the same thing : its ugly, it take too many resource, it look like Sim City graphic, and the size are totally false, i have on of the best PC config today, i play Metro 2033 (a game know for be one of the biggest FPS killer) at 60 FPS to max settings without overcloack, and i can't get more than 40/50 fps (and sometime down to 20 or less in the middle of the map without any effect or big group of vehicle) in DCS, worst : i have one day get more FPS with max graphic settings than with minimum, its IMPOSSIBLE when a graphic engine its a MINIMUM optimized... So sorry but i don't planed to loose 3 month of my life to create texture for free for a graphic engine who will change soon and have work for nothing and who anyways need to be COMPLETELY optimized... And i talk about TRUE optimization, like EVERY game do, like : when we are lost in the middle of the sea with NO land at range, only sea and sky without any weather effect, i must get MORE FPS than over a city in the middle of the land close to the coast, or when we flight through a big cloud or massive frog, every graphic engine will NOT calculate heavy fog to the biggest area possible + the cloud + the ground + the effect from smoke, fire and explosion on the ground, it will just calculate fog only until we are able to see anything else, if we are on the ground, next to a mountain the graphic engine calculate ONLY things in the visual range and NOT things hidden by the mountain, and is only for permit external view that this graphic engine have a reason to calculate it anyways, regardless if we disabled external view, but its supposed to be a simulator WITHOUT external view and we are supposed to simulate a pilot inside a cockpit and not a camera... And over all this problem the texture color are completely false, like the new blue smoke. Maybe for you photorealism are only commercial argument, but it still 1000 time more realistic and accurate than actual DCS World texture. Like this : http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/Einhanderkiller/comparison018mx4df.jpg like this : http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/299/241fi4.jpg Or like this one : http://nsm05.casimages.com/img/2012/01/03/120103120958489739250278.jpg Aerofly FS was the perfect example, airplane have nice and realistic looking texture, the landspace was perfect, and like i have ever say : If we use the same landspace than Aerofly FS BUT with texture more optimized, one with the same resolution and another one for long range (cause it actually use a single texture) cause it will saved a lot of frame rate due to giant texture surface area reduced for HD to low definition (impossible to see it cause its at long range) we will save enough FPS for having a HD ground directly beyond us and maybe have something like Rise of Flight who have nicer grass than DCS, nicer texture quality for the ground and better tree (with nice 3D and not 2D model and who are collidable, DCS World is the ONLY where collidable tree make problems, every other sim permit it and work well) So yes : i don't need to have access to the source code of the graphic engine for modifying texture, but before change texture the graphic engine must change and have TRUE optimization, cause reduce the global FPS its not a true optimization, its just a part of the graphic engine, Arma 3 graphic engine take a little more perf than Arma 2, but its nicer and have bigger view distance, simulator was the worst FPS killer, FSX, X Plane DCS World and other, and the result was the lowest graphic quality i have ever see for a modern software. That why i don't want to modifying the chaotic ground texture files for 3 month or more for a work that apparently no one care about, for a sim who will still heavily lag and who will become incompatible with my mod 2 month after without possibility to convert files. The best example : GrandSurf and is BEAUTIFUL addon who are today forget and who can't work to DCS World never finish cause the files logic change before it was done. And the last problem : the texture change from one computer to another, and i don't talk about screen, when you look DCS World video on youtube with the same screen for a flight at the same season and the same hour, you see different ground color. That why i don't create my own mod. And even with Nevada it don't look better, the 3D details yes, the resolution of texture yes, but the color still false. If you sincerely find in this screenshot : http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=57610&d=1318967175 that the color of the building was correct or that the "smudge" on the ground look realistic, mainly compare to the real nevada or that the color of the montain/cloud look realistic. Its just cause you finally don't care and don't need realist graphic rending for immersion. Anyways its useless to talk about it anymore...

@Corrigan Arg sorry i write "thrust vector" too many time i thinks... @Sobek I don't want to loose long time to create a mod for a work that no one will care about, DCS change everytime, old mods need to be completely redesign a lot of time and now the auto updater delete every change that we can to do DCS World, and except if i reinstall it everytime and prey to every patch that they still compatible with the new DCS World version, the only possibility was that ED make every nice mods official or create an official mods manager directly integrated into DCS World options (like a lot of game do). So sorry but i don't will create a mods, i don't will finish my mod and the files logic of DCS will change, its useless...And i don't have to correct error of others... And anyways i can't change the graphic engine for make TRUE optimization and improve perf and not see anymore no more FPS when lost in the middle of the sea with land out of visual range than over a big city with a lot of building (optimization = fail or missing in this case). A solution can be to create a software who will use urban/topographic/road/rail/natural (for see where is rocky area, forest and other land) virtual map and with a nice autogenerative algorithm for fix the missing data obtain a map adding texture by satellite image for the global map and samples of picture of local point for mode detailed area and the map with realistic and nice texture will be generated, its just a transformation of data, like elevation, where is the road, where is the river, where is the mountain, where is the forest and where is the city. And yes people will told me : its impossible, but several game/software AUTOGENERATE scenery with 0 real data, only nice generative algorithm... And for this game its done in real time, but its useless for a final map to generate real time map, and anyone who create software like that can easily (after a really hard part who is to create this dev tool) create (real) photorealistic visual rending map with realistic elevation data and can without work on it (just lets work a computer and when its finish check for errors/inconsistencies) and finally can create a global map, or several map without loose any time for create other aircraft/graphic engine/terrain engine and other things Anyways i don't will give in this forum any other idea i have, its useless. So sorry for people who wait a mod from me.

I say everytime that ED have a problem with color, cockpit look plastic, metal look like a virtual plastic, sun color are false, sky color are false, ground color are false and smoke color are false. No one trust me until someone else rediscovered it again... When i talk about idea for maximize the visual rending while minimize the pref impact everyone told me its impossible (regardless that other graphic engine do it for the same or more view distance) or its useless, and now people want a fix for a "simple" smoke, people you are funny...

Really nice model, its really nice but it still a problem sadly. A simulator must be optimized for internal view first, actually we simulate a camera rather than a pilot, its a big error, but optimized for external view its a bigger error... Even with my big computer its hard to get decent frames rate, i don't lag but sometime i have FPS drops... The problem its that 3D object don't really help us, i have always say that 3D model of DCS are the best i have ever see, but the map and the ground object like tree look poor and need an update, and i think rather than over optimized 3D model of aircraft already really nice (the Hornet before this one was nice), the priority must be to make a better model for aircraft who have the same model since LOMAC, i prefer have a decent map with nice color and who look realistic (and not see the classic unrealistic color and strange brow spots on the ground who are supposed to represent bush or earth) rather than have a model of train with 100 more polygons than what we need. Its really nice and i thanks ED for make better models but without want to critic them, they update the wrong thing... Anyways the Nevada will coming (we don't have any date but we can hope it will coming soon) but the Georgia need a big update, just make only better color will be 100 time better But i hope ED team will prefer to update old model rather than over update nice model cause actually the low frame rate for bad terrain rending issue of DCS become worst with new aircraft and land object model, it look like the graphic engine was a little more optimized this time cause i have win a lot of frame rates, so thanks to ED for this, i hope that will continue. And if this new F-18 is here cause its the next official 3D aircraft that will be bad for 3 party cause two of them already work on the Hornet... But we will see !

Turbulence its an important feature, already implemented but not really effective. Its just the weather who need to be improve cause actually its a light version, turbulence, even with hard wind is light and a lot of things miss... The most important feature to integrated its turbulence CAUSED BY OBJECT, the R-77 Vympel missile ITSELF cause a massive blast enough for down an helicopter or a small aircraft and its a MISSILE with 3,6 m long, 0,2 m large and 226 Kg and ok it flight fast but it was really small compare to an aircraft. We have NO turbulence caused by other aircraft, its stupid to not implement important features... My favorite aircraft the XB-70 Valkyrie was lost cause he sucked a NASA's escort modifier F-104 with wings vortex, during refueling its an important thing who can cause difficulty for approach if we are at the wrong position, a french Mirage 2000 have down a small aircraft just by pass fast close to him, the civil aircraft have lost control and crash, even with military helicopter it can happen, imagine an F-15 pass next to you at Mach 2,5... During dogfight it can be really important, the aircraft vortex/turbulence and the jet wash itself, and its not implemented... Anyways i have stop to hope to see new and IMPORTANT/REALISTIC feature in DCS...

I agree, and the problem its bigger with the KA-50, this helicopter is design to use the landscape and a lot of time he will use trees for hide and protect himself from rocket/missiles.

The funny part was : Every other aircraft/war simulator/game i know have collidable trees and don't have any problems... Just wait Edge with Nevada and hope, its the only thing to do, and hope it will release before the end of the world :D

I was disappointed, i have hope we can have a new FC aircraft, maybe the Tornado, or the fun to have something like the B1, or even the F-18/F-16 or a FC Helicopter, or any new flyable aircraft... Except the new F-15 cockpit and 3D model (3D model who will maybe be the one we have actually in DCS World who anyways don't need update) only the copy of the FC2 aircraft was done for an integration into DCS World and just some new features, i was really disappointed to see no new aircraft AND a really long time for a simple adaptation into DCS World from FC2, its too many long for what we will have, mainly for this price... And like say Esac_mirmidon why community (hard) work was ignored and no 3D model was imported, we have a lot of really great 3D model who just wait that, not only the SU-27/33 Except if a gain money or the price of FC3 was corrected, i don't will buy it, its just an upgrade of FC2 and not a new product, the price of a full game was really expensive...