imac12

Thanks! I really appreciate the interaction the dev team puts in with us common folk :thumbup:

Noticed the same thing earlier today. Wingman had taxied to the end of the ramp to rearm after a mission, opened his canopy and poof, he was no longer sitting in the cockpit.

Is it just me or has the graphics load gone up significantly in 0.8? I've had to drastically alter my in-game settings to get the game to what I consider a smooth playable experience. Just doing some rough testing this morning I averaged a 30 fps drop when turning on the MAV display on the MFCD and between 10 and 20 additional frames with the TGP. I can go from 60fps to 15 with the flick of two switches. I used to lose about 20 total in 0.7. Is there a way to disable the additional graphical features (like tree shadows) in a .lua somewhere?

I noticed the same thing. Cold start and the HUD didn't default to DTS.

Two issues. First, has anybody else noticed the radio menus, specifically re-arm, are about worthless now? Every sub menu has its parent menu referenced, I.E., the Anti-Armor menu list says 1. Anti Armor - 6*AGM-65D... 2. Anti Armor - 2*CBU-97... It makes it so every line is truncated beyond belief and you really have no way to read it. Not sure if this is system specific, but both my wingman and I noticed it last night. I'm running at 1900x1200. Also seems like the onscreen font and font size for the radio menu has changed... or am I completely crazy? Second, and I realize this is kind of broad, but my system took a massive FPS hit when I turned on the TGP last night. It went from ~40 to 15 with that sole action. A few units on the TGP, a couple of smoke plumes, but nothing I hadn't seen before. GTX580, i7-930, etc etc. Plenty capable system and I never noticed this big of drop in 0.7.

I disagree. Its a problem with the target type not being modeled appropriately. They way I understand it today, each target, be it a building, tank or troop, has a specific hit point value. There is no differentiation between each target type.

My mistake, I meant the 2003 invasion. I think the 20,000 referred to the BDU-108s, not a 97 or 105.

You mean as in... ever? 6 SFW total? I was reading something yesterday (having the damndest time finding it right now) that something along the lines of 20,000 were used in 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Is there a flag to separate different object types? I.E. - Vehicles, static objects, personnel, etc etc? What I'm getting at is with this method, would just any object trigger it?

I dont think the beef is with its performance of the weapon against MBTs or armor at all... it's about different targets. Ships, buildings, etc etc.

I was under the impression that this game was long since past that point... hence the need to make a concession (which obviously already was) somewhere. Just trying to think out loud if there is a better way to model it within the confines that are presented today. So today it's modeled as an explosive weapon, when in reality, it's a direct impact, but you have no way to model 40 direct impact weapons searching out targets and prosecuting them. EDIT: What OutOnTheOP said. Seems like a good idea to me. Is every round from the cannon modeled or is it a percentage of what is fired? If it's every round, it doesn't seem like too much of a leap to model 40 submunitions. But shoudlnt target type come into play? An EFP is going to do vastly different damage depending upon what it strikes, right? If we just model damage numbers (while simplifying the modeling, yes) doesn't that lead to skewed results, as we have now? Feel free to dismiss me at any time, as I'm not attempting to argue/complain, but really just trying to find a way to make this even better than it already is.

Modeled incorrectly was not the proper statement, knowing the limitations that currently exist. And perhaps you're correct, other hit point values should be re-thought, especially those of buildings. What about the simulated splash/blast damage? There should be very little for an EFP weapon such as the 97. Personnel effects should be minimal at any sort of range (30 feet? 50 feet? Not knowing the composition/amount of the blast charge that fires the penetrator, it's hard to tell, but one could fancy a guess because of its size) and damage to buildings/structures, whether a direct hit or not, should be almost minimal... unless you were to hit a tin shack filled with Chinese fireworks. Is all damage in the sim modeled as a result of explosive power and not kinetic energy? I'm guessing not because of the GAU-8 projectiles, but maybe I'm completely off base here.

Set one for a HOF of 3000 and drop it over the center of a city and tell me you don't think its over powered.

I've had zero problems with mine. Couldn't imagine flying without it now. It just makes the game that much better. I went from a crappy TM HOTAS-X to the Warthog and havent looked back. It's so much more natural and intuitive to use the buttons/hats/switches on the WH then to try and remember what keys you mapped it to on the keyboard or other HOTAS setup. I would recommend it to anybody looking to actually get into the game on a level more than just flying around and smoking the occasional tank.

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/documentation/dcs_a-10c_flight_manual_en/