Cedaway

Bah, l'intégration des image peut se faire après. Rien ne presse. On pourra toujours demander une fois le texte brut traduit.

Ouaip, il y a moyen de faire comme ça. Ou bien je peux demander à ED de fournir le *.doc original et de remplacer le texte EN par le texte FR en gardant la même mise en page et les images... En fait, je ne sais pas comment les membres de la Trad Team ont fait pour le manuel du A-10c. Leur exemple pourrait nous servir.

What if doom developed today???

Oh, shame that we wouldn't have more EDGE update. What is interesting is to see the evolutions between builds. And it would be interesting to have a discussion over 'the under the hood' of the engine. Just the nerd touch...

Nevada doesn't look real... ... ... ... As I don't see guys with 'CSI' jackets :music_whistling::doh: No, seriously, thanks for those updates. You do great work, ED.

Thanks:thumbup:

Salut à tous, Comme annoncé précédemment, j'ai commencé la trad du manuel du P-51d. J'en ai extrait à présent juste le texte (car je ne sais pas comment récupérer les images du PDF) Toutefois, je suis dans l'incapacité actuelle (depuis quelques semaines déjà) de poursuivre. Et comme ça serait dommage de laisser 'pourrir' le travail, est-ce que ça intéresse des gens de poursuivre? (J'en suis à la page 72) J'ai demandé l'accord à 'Wags' pour ce travail et il me l'a donné. Si ça vous intéresse, dites-le par PM et je vous enverrai le lien (skydrive, l'édition peut aussi se faire online) Ced.

Question: I Understood that Nevada map is ready but the IG (EDGE) is not. But If the Nevada map is ready, that means there is already a known way to create maps under EDGE. So, is it possible to know how to make a map under the new IG? So that 3rd parties ans community could start to create... (Or, the other possibility is that the nevada map is 'experimental' to test/run EDGE and needs to be continuously updated as the IG improve, then, there wouldn't be a fixed way to create new map presently... Grunt)

Concerning the wingtip vortices, is it just a visual effect or is it actually physically modeled/calculated. If so, this can introduce the 'wash' effects for crossing aircraft too. I posted a question some weeks ago... Let me find it... Yeah, that one: And the answer was: So, is it that? Or is it 'just' a visual effect?

THIS:thumbup:

Would this nice graphic add be modeled with such calculation on our PC? I'd be astonished.

As long as ED would pre-approve any module release, I've faith in their judgement. But if the project is not enough documented or has issues concerning avionics, flight model or whatever, I hope ED would warn them/us during their pre-approval.

Scottish proverb? :music_whistling: ;)

Yes, A-10C, P-51d, Ka-50, UH-1h, Mig-21bis, Hawk,... have or will have all that in common. And that's awesome. BUT, does ED can approve a module as 'DCS: aircraft' title if it has no AFM, highly detailed avionics,... ? Without a proper definition, it's an open door. There is a need for such mid-detailed aircraft, of course. Maybe called differently, like 'Aircraft X for DCS World' or else. Presently, there seems to be a 'grey zone'. A dev produce an aircraft with superb highly detailed and accurate 6 DOF cockpit with an outstanding exterior but has SFM and 'FC derived' avionics. So what? DCS title or not?

That's why I'm asking the question... AFM is never mentionned (or am I blind?) A quote from Wags, defining DCS:

I'm not being part of tester team. I'm now DCS fan for some years now and I'm OK with you regarding "DCS standards". I've made search through the forum to have a definition of this "DCS Standards". I don't find it, or not accurate. I know that the proposed module must be checked by the ED team itself, it must have 6DOF cockpit and a high detailed and accurate model. But what else? What about the systems, avionics, Flight Model,...? I found that the degree of fidelity is up to the 3rd party dev himself. Here is the last definition I found for "What is DCS?" So, when we call for "DCS Standards", what are we really talking about? We all have an idea, of course. But which one is the good one? Can someone light my bulb?

Hope EDGE & F/A-18c news

"Wagdate" :huh::megalol: Love it Looks like when we waited for UH-1h, it was always 'is it out, is it out yet, hey, hey,...'

But shouldn't you have to have height map too to calculate the terrain masking in relation with the relative angle of the emitting source?

$31,326 out of $75K... 32 hours to go...

And that's a low res image/zoom compared of what actual radar are capable of ;)

Welcome aboard. :)

+1 :thumbup:

Here, Luthier1 has stated that : 1. There’s a new project in development between RRG Studios (my company) and Eagle Dynamics. and 6. The landscape in the new project will be based on EDGE. And finally 2. The official project announcement, alongside screenshots, videos, schedules, and the most detailed feature description you’ve ever seen on any flight sim ever, will come no earlier and no later than September 1st, 2013. The date is very important for the project. We cannot miss it. Be there. So, I expect September 1st would bring fresh news on EDGE too. And I want to add 'Finally, at last!' EDIT: And concerning Black Sea Map, just read the first post of the thread: Will the Black Sea map in its current form work with EDGE? No. Since the technology behind EDGE is dramatically different, down to the tools that create it, terrain needs to be built with the EDGE benefits in mind. This is a HUGE undertaking and not an easy task to redo something. So : Not that simple... ;) It's just being at work for nearly 3 years now (a guesstimate from that post, counting it should have taken one more year of build to show those pics)

We (I)'ll be :thumbup: