Dragon1-1

Honestly, the big problem with wireless power transmission is that all electromagnetic waves are absorbed, to some degree, by the environment, including human beings. A haptic pad using beamed microwave power would be... unhealthy, to say the least, especially given that most people here are male (not that women would be partial to sitting in the path of a microwave beam, either). A more practical solution would be a battery, but I suppose a haptic pad draws too much power for that. Sitting atop a lithium battery is also not on my list of things to do anytime soon. Maybe if it was integrated into the chair, but then, they'd be selling an entire seat.

IRL, you could rip something off, certainly take damage and you'd often break the wire. There was an incident when a low flying EA-6 cut a cable for a cable car in Italy, killing the people in the car. The EA-6 pilot (a capital-A asshole, from what I've heard from a Marine who had the "pleasure" to be on his deck crew) survived and in fact, kept flying like nothing has happened. The aircraft was damaged, but not heavily.

Well, FBW aircraft can avoid scheduling ailerons at high AoA and use only differential tail, which mitigates this problem. Hornet, for example, with its legendary slow speed maneuverability. Tomcat does that to some extent, too, but since it doesn't lock out the spoilers, that doesn't help much (though to its credit, small stick deflections are OK, just as long as spoilers stay down). It's true for all aircraft that can't do things like that, though.

Even on the earliest aircraft, you used wing warping to turn. In fact, the Wright Brothers' big innovation was rolling into the turn, as opposed to trying to turn the Flyer like a boat. It was always combined with rudder at that time, of course, but you always needed both, early planes were quite a handful to keep going where you wanted them to go. Ailerons were a big deal, but they didn't fundamentally change the way aircraft were flown, but rather allowed doing it with much less effort. In WWI aircraft you had to use the rudder to get them to roll at anywhere near combat rates, but those were flown with all your extremities and your rear end as well, more or less at all times (especially rotaries, what with the huge spinning mass in front and their otherwise diminutive size). The reason you only use the rudder to roll in the Tomcat at high AoA is that it doesn't have ailerons. What it does have is spoilerons, which induce roll by decreasing the lift on the appropriate wing, something you can't afford at high AoA, because they'll stall that wing and send you spinning. It's somewhat similar with the Phantom, it does have ailerons, but at high AoA, it needs all the lift the main wing provides, and any deflection there risks stalling one.

Would Process Lasso work? Either way, that is one of the reasons why I always build my own rigs. I don't trust companies not to muck something up like that.

It doesn't work like that, version numbers are not decimals. They'll go to 2.9.10 or 2.10.1 if they have to. It'll be ready when it's ready, as always.

As often mentioned already, it might help for VR, simply because DX11 does VR in a boneheaded way (essentially drawing the scene from scratch, twice). Vulkan offers better ways of doing that, so I'd expect them to be used from the start. It's also a more modern API, so perhaps some optimizations can be added organically while implementing it. It is essentially a rendering engine rewrite, after all.

No, it only means something like "disconnected", "disabled" or "turned off". The voice system can't tell whether it failed or has been disabled by the crew, and the word can mean both.

Wouldn't a Lot 24 Superbug have an option for buddy pod AAR? That's one thing our Hornet lacks compared to Super Hornet models.

It's "отказал первий генератор", and it could be translated as "generator 1 is disabled". The helo doesn't actually know whether it's broken or not, but it can tell whether it's generating power. If it's not because you just flipped the switch to turn it off, that means you have a reason to worry.

If you can manage kill one (by going fast and using the F-pole maneuver), turn and run far enough to reset the fight, then you can try to win the one on one. Otherwise, you're at a massive disadvantage, a two to one fight against a peer enemy. AI is not brain-dead now, and it can fight you rather effectively in BVR. This might not be winnable.

What a chonker, and with a price to match. Those forces are impressive, though.

Well, I'd argue that as far as campaigns go, it'd be nice to have the pilot body actually look female in Speed and Angels, when playing as a female character. Subtle stuff like smaller hands and narrower shoulders, mostly, you can see that when looking around the cockpit. So campaign creators would be able to take advantage of it, too.

It was actually done a few years ago, as part of a big survey where someone (a web magazine, perhaps?) gathered a lot of different stats for a lot of different sims. I doubt stats have changed much since then, though maybe Top Gun 2 (which came out after the survey) inspired some more girls. Overall, though, I remember that the result was that most of combat flightsimmers were male, but female ones did exist. It would be nice to have such little detail for cases when the flight suit is not all-concealing, for instance in helicopters. This would be useful not only to video creators, but also to campaign makers who might want to give a specific appearance to the crew. I also wouldn't mind some randomization among the Supercarrier crew models, just to make it a little more varied. I suspect actually finishing the functionality comes first, though.

They are brevity calls, however for the purposes of a specific exercise, a flight of F-5s serving as the only bandits in the airspace might get callsign BANDIT, which is presumably where the author of this list got it from. BOGEY likewise, it's just a flight of bogeys for a given set of problems. In simpler exercises, it does happen. RIVER, I think, is usually some sort of EW/ELINT aircraft we don't have in DCS. VILLAN would likely work for exercises, though. CYLON might get ED in hot water (likewise the Star Wars inspired callsigns, which are quite common IRL), but IVAN and STALIN would be nice additions. And yeah, sometimes if the ops is not feeling particularly imaginative, you get stuff like MIG, FLOGGER, VIPER and HORNET. We have a few callsigns of this type, mostly for A-10s.

Still good enough to run a bomber's day (assuming the bomber wasn't flying too high). It wasn't exactly powerful enough to engage 109s, anyway, though it sure could outturn one if the 109 pilot was dumb enough to try turning with it. It could still trash larger German aircraft.

Not anymore. Viper and Hornet already made several steps in the right direction, for example radar priority/jammer priority/barrage jamming distinction. This is not "as basic as it gets", which now mostly applies to FC3 aircraft. Making the band selection meaningful by making the jammer affect only specific emitters depending on the settings is another straightforward upgrade, which we might yet see. That alone would make the switch in the cockpit quite meaningful. Here's a good (if a bit clunky) summary of how Gardeniya works (ignore the part about Sorbtsiya, this is for Gardeniya). Only 7 and 8 are settings which we have in DCS right now, lock-breaking and barrage jamming. If the specific bands were implemented, 1 would likely be air to air, and 2 to 5 would be presets for various SAMs. Blinking and ground bounce are interesting modes, and their principles are well known. I hope that once ED is done with the radar modes, they'll look into this.

The Gardeniya jammer is actually documented in public docs. Or rather, the general functions of its operating mode knob are. It's a fairly straightforward device to operate, though I don't know whether that's enough to model it.

The pilots at the time said of the Spit that "she was a lady in the air, but a bitch on the ground". On the grass it's better than on pavement, but landing, rollout and braking in a WWII taildragger is an art. Bouncing is caused by coming in too fast, which is caused by not putting your nose up high enough on final (if you can see the runway, you're going too fast). It's not a problem with the gear. It's a problem with you trying to fly it like a tricycle. Yes, it's harder than flying a modern aircraft, that's just how fighters were back then. It's hardly an exceptionally difficult aircraft to either take off or land in, but also not the easiest one around. The 109 has bigger problems with torque, the same narrow gear issues, and the only saving graces are the toe brakes and lockable tailwheel. There's a very good guide on the forum on taildragger landing technique. Real WWII pilots benefited from the "seat of pants feeling" that allowed them to handle the aircraft somewhat better, particularly in yaw, but it's a matter of practice, and ultimately very similar to the kind of precision you need to stick a carrier landing. I've had a ton of problems with it, until I learned how to do it. There's a great post somewhere on the forum from a real taildragger instructor that explains the idea.

Other videos you've seen might be from older sims. DCS F-16 looks amazing, but it's quite unfinished, with several features missing. It's getting better, but it's not as comprehensive as the A-10C, which really does simulate everything, right down to the smallest switch (except the Pave Penny pod, but IRL they were often left disconnected, too). More accurate weapon performance would likely be a significant change, but it's something that you'd likely only notice if you flew the real thing. Physics are the same, and tactics will be mostly the same, too. The devil is in details, using DCS numbers with IRL weapons would likely get you killed against a competent opponent, but the overall physics of BVR and dogfighting don't change. There may be some parts of the envelope that are classified, but it's often possible to make an educated (with CFD) guess. Also, small correction, we usually call them "missiles". There's not much classified about actual rockets, which are unguided and rather straightforward to both model and use.

It does. An AMD card that has the same performance as the Nvidia equivalent in 2D will often suck in VR. One reason to stick is otherwise overpriced Nvidia cards is better VR support. For VR, I could recommend a 3090. While it's not a 4090, you can get it surprisingly cheap, if you have some patience and look out for a good offer. It's a massive power hog and it's so huge it won't fit in every case, but it comes with 24GB of VRAM, which is important for DCS, particularly in VR. I don't know if it outperforms a 4070 Super otherwise, but I'm very happy with mine.

Given the pace of DCS aircraft development, ED may or may not finish the A model before those are available. This could allow us to get the S sometime in the future. It did have an interesting international career.

Oh, so now that you lost on CPU costs, you bring in the cost of the whole system. Yeah, you do need an up to date mobo and RAM, which cost a bit more, but this also means that any upgrade attempt doesn't mean tossing the whole rig. Unless you're reusing parts from an earlier build, you pay less in short term, but set yourself up to pay more in long term. Unless it's explicitly a time critical situation, saving up a little more for an up to date rig is usually going to be a better option. I said a short statement, then, when you started quibbling over caveats, I elaborated on it. I stand by what I said. That you need the obvious part explained out loud doesn't change a thing. It's you doing mental gymnastics to not just justify selling people a suboptimal setup, but also recommending others to build them that way. It's probably great for having people come back when they need another full refresh, but that's all.

I forgot you run a business. I'm sure you get a lot of repeat customers by doing it that way, so to speak. Myself, I base my advice on people getting gear that is not about to be three generations behind the state of art. You did say they drop, but you conveniently forgot to include the little caveat that by the time they do, you can often get a lower tier CPU of the latest generation that will perform just as well, if not better. Now, last gen Intels are a bit of an exception here (they do run nicely, just not for very long), but this is easily resolved by buying an AMD CPU. Case in a point: https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0CQ27H8VY?context=search https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B09FXNVDBJ?context=search https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/4609vs5835/Intel-i7-12700K-vs-Intel-i5-14500 Similar price for similar performance, but one of them runs much cooler and is less of a power hog. Of course, given the problems with Intels (and not just the latest ones), I'd instead look for a Ryzen in the same range. I sure hope your customers are aware you're selling them obsolete hardware and are OK with that. So I'll restate and clarify my point. Between the end of "lunatic fringe cliff" and obsolescence, CPU prices don't really drop off with age, and that's just the way it works. And stay away from anything that's off either side of that range unless you have a very good reason. I thought the latter part was obvious enough, but apparently it doesn't stop some people from quibbling about it.

I'm not saying they don't vary, I'm saying there's no drop like you see with GPUs. You can definitely get a deal, but while a second to last generation GPU. You do get a large benefit from waiting a few months after release, so you're not buying at the "lunatic fringe" price (and also are warned in case the new generation is a major lemon), but that's true of just about everything. In fact, your links helpfully prove my point. Look at average prices for 5800X3D and 7800X3D. The difference is less than $50, and after the "lunatic fringe" cliff, they both oscillate around their average. How the price fluctuates beyond that is immaterial, you can of course save quite a bit if you get it on a sale, but that's true for both. With a bit of shopping around I'm sure you can get the 7800X3D for cheaper than the average price of a 5800X3D. They do eventually drop off in long term, but by that point, they're basically obsolete. So if you want to quibble, yes, they do drop off. At a point when they're not worth actually buying even at that reduced price. Yes, you can get a 12700K for $200, it's even in stock on Amazon. Would you recommend anyone to base their build on that one in 2024?