Prophet_169th

Hey Recon, I have a better idea. Since YOU are the one in disagreement about the missle settings, how about YOU provide the proof, with numbers charts and everything you asked for, to prove that 100% isnt more correct. I think many people have stated, in many threads, that ARH missles are too easily spoofed. Proof enough for me, so what do you got? Your opinion.............

It is not a solution, because other effects work fine. What I believe, is that the most of the effects are highly modelled. With a missle, you have 1 impact. No problem. You fire how many rounds from 1 cannon, and you have how many impacts? Maybe only the 1st, every 5, and last impact need to be rendered? I think it may be a combination of the GFX effect, as well as the sound that goes with it. I am going to experiment on my days off with the sound.

I think overall should see good improvements.

Turning down effects, for 1 effect, doesnt seem like a solution to me. Some have said, it may be the sound? Not the smoke.

OMG. What would it take for someone to get that terrain with LOMAC AFM.

It is to protect the laser. And yes those few seconds can cause permanent and serious damage to the laser. One possibility, is put the laser in override from the start of the run. But remember to shut off.

Thank you tflash, very good summary of my stumbling replies.

And just for the record, I am not rejecting the fact that IR is a very very good way of target acquisition. I am just arguing the point that visual is not. http://www.dynetics.com/solutions/test/testHardware/seeker.htm People are testing it. Also, IR visual UV and radar are all the same thing. Electromagnetic waves. UV and visual provide a better resolution of data since its a shorter wavelength. Look up LADAR.

UV has been brought up before. I dont know if they are used in A2A missles. I do know that the TOW2 anti-armor missles has a IR lamp and a UV beacon on the back, to track the missle. Tracks good enough to 1650m, and thats at the edge of visual range against armor. I have fired that weapon, and used the IR scope on it extensively. There are multiple uses for visual spectrum. For instance, you may get intensity from IR. But what if the intensity of the flare matches that of the engine? Now suppose you had a visual spectrum sensor with it. The wavelength of the flare, will not be the same as the spectrum of the engine. All you need is a diffraction grating to see that. There are more filter options for visual, since it is a larger spectrum. Look at only red, look at only green, or yellow or blue. Red and blue make little sense, since they are close to IR and UV respectively, but in IR and UV you have a very narrow band of wavelength to discriminate. Visual is large. Sure, its seems easy to defeat, but you judge that by what you can see. Electrically, its the same though. Just because the image you see is blurred, doesnt mean the image the CCD needs to be. Wavefront metrology. Its a method to remove atmoshperic distortion. They use it in Photolithopgrahy (me) and ground based stellar telescopes.

If you rejected the flare anyways, then flares wouldnt be used as CM's.

Thanks for the long winded reply. I shoudnt have bothered reading most of it. Specially after the "I know what I am talking about". Well you wanna go bragging about what you know. I have a degree in Electronic Engineering. Not a PhD. I currently work at Intels main fab, on probably the most complicated piece of capital machinery made, I know what I am talking about. And it doesnt matter if its guidance, or your X-Box, its still just electronics. Visual, IR, UV, doesnt matter. The only difference is the CCD type used, and the optics material used. The exact reason you want more data, is so it can be rejected. If you just have a plain IR tracker, then it is easily jammed. Simple sensor, simple counter-measure. That is a fact. To a CCD there is no difference between IR, UV or visual. It gets teh same signal, and the noise from CM is rejected the same way. Patterns are rejected the same way. All it is, is more data, and its useful regardless, if yes, your opinion. Did you ever think, like I said, that with visual acquisition if the target turned tail and ran, and dumped fuel to block the visual, that you still have IR? =O! So why bother with visual? Oh wait, arent there ways to counter IR, oh yes thats right, there is. Its called a flare. And a flare is easier to reject in a visual picture, than an IR. You cant reject data, if you dont have it. You are right, the RWR had nothing do with it. Except for the fact that it was an ANALOGY. You say data is bad. i proved a point, that its not. Just because you are a 1.2 beta tester dont mean your the only opinion that counts around here. You talk about processing power. The processing isnt demanded by creating the image, its demanded by advanced algorithms to determine false positives. Anyways, its clear you need to have you way in this conversation, so "yes dear, you are absolutely right".

I am turning the graphics to low, just because of a guns effect. There is too many cycles being used by these effects. They need to be optimized. Yup, I see you once in a while Lange. Would be happy to talk =)

Yeah, its not a low power laser. For it to last longer, you would have to increase the cooling. And the 25T is heavy enough. The best thing to do, is lock the target before you turn laser on. It takes practice, but then estimate range to target, and only turn the laser on when you are in range to fire. You only get range on the HUD with the laser on, so if you need, just turn it on briefly to get range. The laser is usually good for one pass. Then let it cool, and turn around again.

Also, there was someone who did a PS1.1 optimization of some files. It seemed to help.

Is it the smoke? or is it the lighting? Either way. I posted about this in the general. Try in FC to fly an Su25T with 4 Gunpods and your main gun blazing. Total stop to FPS. Then a second later, I am eating dirt.

How is visual light "bad"? Provide something other than your opinion. IR is limited. Its limited to a small set of spectrum. UV is limited, small spectrum. Visual has a larger spectrum. These can be advantages, but also provide less data. To a CCD that is designed for a specific wavelength, it gives the same output. That is then converted to an image. IR is good because it contrasts well. UV for the same reason. But because of the narrow band, it is easier to jam also. And exactly how is more data bad? If you think more data is bad, then how about we just take the RWR out of the jets. I mean, you know, too much data and all. The more data, the more that can be compared. IR gets jammed, so what you have UV and visual. UV gets jammed, so what got IR and visual. Throw up smoke, and who cares got UV, maybe IR.

You realize that most missles dont lock or dont track properly if you fire with EOS on?

Well, I can say this. A flare to an IR seeker, is pretty much blinds it. Now in the visual, not so bad. There is just as much benefit to visual, as there is to IR or UV. More data is always a good thing. And you must also realize, that just because the system is "optical" doesnt mean it is for visual spectrum.

I would guess, with the ease at which Olgerd asked for information, and responded, then I would say, yes.

Well I am running it on my TV. It has a fixed resolution of 1280x720 @ 60Hz I just updated Forceware, because the previous version crashed with haze on all the way. I do run with AA and AF pretty high, if not all the way up. I will try those settings. I also got some 3rd party pixel and shader optimization. I havent tried the Su25T with all 5 pods yet, but I will check that too. From what I have seen with the other fps issues, I am just wondering if they had optimized the lighting and shading effects enough??

I notice that it is almost impossible to stafe, because the FPS drops when the bullets impact. Fly the Su25T, and load up all the gun pods, and then try it. I have a AMD64 3500, 1GB RAM, and a 6800GT. Even 1 gun is enough to make it hell, all 5 going off and its a full stop. There is obviously much improvement needed to whatever file makes those effect.

I dont see how it is temporary? Once this program is used, the issue is gone, if I understand correctly. It may be 3rd party, and maybe should somehow be integrated to do this internally, but its still a permanent solution.

OT: Wolverine, you got a typo in your sig.

I have noticed this too. Most of the time I get on, and there is fewer than 20 people. Maybe everyone is waiting for a patch. Or maybe they are waiting for F4:AF............

If you arent using anti-radiation missles and dont need the Phanta pod, then put the LLTV pod on. Though the magnification is less, targets are much easier to pick up in the FLIR image.