112th_Rossi

Cant connect either

My concern is that if 3rd Party addons do not consistently meet the quality we've all come to expect from ED, the reputation of ED and the platform itself will become diluted. I appreciate the fact that users can review the addon first and get feedback from existing users but I think I would prefer a handfull of awesomely modelled addons upto the quality of ED products, than a whole collection of items of questionable quality. Thats not to say that the open platform is not a good thing but over the last couple of weeks we've seen enthusiastic posts from 3rd Party devs who have elevated the expectation of the community to great heights. The promise of jets that we all know have highly top secret aspects have to be greeted with some sort of scepticism. And this begs the question, why bother with a 3rd Party addon that is dumbed down since the data it's built on is a best guess? This is my main concern, I would be more excited if jets were being made for which we knew the devs could get hold of reliable and accurate data. I know we have a choice, but I won't be rushing out to buy the F-22 because I know it'll be a fantasy mod rather than something as real as it can be.

Colour me concerned also. I'm a bit worried that the sim will be flooded with any old toss.

Roger that Hawg 1-1, you said I didn't have the balls for this job, well watch this! Engaging armour!

It was a winter mission. Hmm interesting. I'll try a different mission

Has the total engine power output changed in the latest patch? There are some little things I've noticed. The time for the engines to spool up has decreased significantly, probably by about a third. The actual power output seems greater now. Even with a heavy weapons/fuel load I can reach 200kts very quickly after I have left the run way. I just get the feeling that the aircraft is more of a powerhouse now. Has something changed?

I'd love to fly with you! I'm from the UK and I'm available most evenings. Do you have Steam? I'm happy to help you learn the Hawg! :D Always good to meet new pilots!

The way points will usually tell you the general area where the targets are. Look for Fence, IP and Target (usually named what you're looking for). If JTAC is available, loiter around IP and call them up for target tasking.

Suddenly started happening to me last night too. Specs are in signature. Ever thought it might be a server name with invalid characters or exceeding the buffer length? The first DLL that crashes (MSVCR100.dll) is C++ runtime, so it's caused an exception which has then cascaded to any other DLLs which have been loaded. Anyway to log the stack trace?

Harrier. Good choice. But as with all the recent annoucements, I'll beleive it when I see it. :)

I don't think anyone is suggesting merging the two or one being a replacement for the other. ArmA 2 is a fantastic game and it's popularity reflects that. It does a good job at representing infantry and vehicular (fixed wing being the exception) combat. Who knows what the future brings with DCS, the S in DCS doesn't have to mean flight and armour based simulation. I know the engine as it stands makes infantry 'simulation' a bit limited (you can't enter buildings etc, map resolution etc) but thats not to say someone somewhere might come up with an idea. Unlikely as it might seem. I play ArmA 2 and other games in your 'pecking order', so I take a small exception to being labelled 'riff raff'

INTRUDER!!!!!!!!!111111oneoneoneeleven

I also noticed when I was porting over my X52 ingame settings, I exported the profile from 1.1.1.1 but when I used the Load Profile option 1.1.2.1 you could browse to the folder but the file would not be listed, you had to type the name of the file in manually and click OK. This confused me.

Nice one!

Cool thanks. Found that I couldn't enter any CDU data with TIR as I couldn't contort my neck to the right angle to read the pad. lol.

In 1.1.1.1 the Num 0 + Num 1 view was the radios and throttle quadrant, and Num 0 + Num 2 was the CDU pad. Now they are the Left and Right MFCD respectively... why? How do I bring up the old views?

My only gripe is having a Hawk flying around the Crimean is a bit unrealistic but hey ho. It would be cool to have an Anglesey/Wales terrain for training!

HAWK!!!! HAWK HAWK HAWK!!! /Jumps around like a school kid!

Correct. The A10 isn't really a SEAD aircraft so any AA threat that has an engagement envelope of greater than 8nm is probably worth avoiding. Use the RWR to determine your situation with regard to how 'safe' you are rather than as means to work out how to enagage that threat. SEAD strikes are best reserved for flights that have a greater stand-off capability, unless you like dodging missiles. :)

I dont know the 'methodology' of FTS but I am willing to help you.

You're right. RWR only indicates type and level of threat. Closer to the middle means high threat, outer edge is a lesser threat. There is no way to tell distance.

Allow me to politely disagree on some points. The sim runs on all cores, but as a single thread. I can accept that the sim is unable to fully utilise the features that come with a mult-core architecture, but you speak as if, when programming a piece of software, the developer picks a 'core' for a process to run on. This is not neccesarilly true. There is no need to pick a core for a specific task. I speak from a software development perspective (as I am employed as developer myself). From a design standpoint you would create threads out of tasks. Normally such tasks are Asynchronous so do not require to be in sync with the rest of the application. Voice communication is a good example of a task which could be asynchronously processed. Multiple cores simply help the processing of multiple threaded applications. Although I appreciate that the ED team have bigger fish to fry, it's definitely not impossible. I also accept that TS running as background process is the best way to go for now. Should you set the CPU affinity of an application, what you are doing is just denying the applications ability to utilise other cores for processing its threads. In most cases it's better to just leave the affinity alone.

I hope so. The game (see Sim) is moving in a great direction and I am genuinely excited. Personally I prefer multiplayer over single player so I would love to see some development from the standpoint of accessibility (that does not mean dumbing down). A lot of devs talk about accessibility, which is a by-word for reducing the complexity requirements. I'm not suggesting that (just thought i would pre-empt anyone who might be thinking i am), but a flourishing multiplayer community nurtures the single player aspect im sure. TARS like integration in DCS would be absolutely amazing

TARS is fine, but its an extra layer of setting up, tweaking etc. Integrated voice coms in game would make things much more accessible and straight forward. This sim already has an elitist/snob contingent as it is which scares off potential players who might have a lot to contribute to this community. Basically the less hoops a player has to jump through to get into the game and have a good time the better.

Player to Player communication Hypothetical scenario: Multiplayer game is being played with some A10 players and some JTAC players A10 wants some tasking info, how does he go about communicating with the real JTAC player in the abscence of comms such as teamspeak? Integrated voice com would be amazing.