Weta43

Because of differences in their physiology, on average women have better G tolerance than men... (& research during the minuteman program found react better under stress).

or the N011M Bars on the Su-27 - after all, one was fitted to one airframe или штанги N011M на Су-27 - в конце концов, один был установлен на один планер <edit>Я бы предпочел «настоящие» самолеты</edit>

Also - & I'm a bit sketch about this - there's only one floating point calculator per physical core, so if you see 4 logical cores, you've only got 2 floating point calculators. If you split some type of jobs up over too many threads, they just end up waiting for that resource. case in point - I run a simulation at work on machines that have 44 (2 x 22) physical cores, and show as having 88 logical cores (& 256GB RAM). We can specify how many cores to use, and which processor core to allocate them to. Performance improves linearly as you spread the jobs over cores (44 cores takes 1/2 the time that 22 does), but caps out at 44. assigning 88 'cores' is no faster than assigning 44 because the threads just end up waiting for the numeric processor. It may be that on home PCs with until recently 2 or 3 physical cores, there wasn't much point in trying to multi-thread beyond splitting out the sound (& perhaps some AI logic)

That's a fairly simple change, and I think E.D. could do it in a blink (though my own prejudice is that Russia tends to look at these issues through the same lens the West used in the 50's). I think the real issue is the voices/ No point in a female / non white model that can only be seen from the outside if every time you use the comms menu the voice is still the stock files. There are a lot of pilot voice files, and I think they're all voiced by voice actors not E.D. staff. Creating those is probably a reasonable sized job.

There's not much to see on a modern pilot's model that would identify the pilot as a woman, but at least their should be an option to have the pilot's voice be a woman's. WWII might be a different argument. Ahhh - the anger of the privileged when they see their privilege slipping away :) Maybe you see it as virtue signalling if you're white and male & worried the world is changing. It's just asking to be visible in the world if you're a woman or not white - for the game to reflect the real world, not a regressive fantasy world where women and non-whites know their places (out of sight). Despite how you might like to imagine it, in the real world all pilots are not all male, middle aged and white, & that was the case even in WWII. There's nothing sexist or racist about suggesting some of the other people in the world be represented. Being upset that they might be on the other hand... What's more, the idea that you are trying to do women and minorities a favour by excluding them from representation because you're saving them from the slight of being considered 'token' ? Both laughable and generally insulting. It starts from the ridiculous position that there aren't enough "worthy" women and minorities in the air in the real world to bother representing them because of their existence (which shows something about how you see the world), and then insults the intelligence of every reader by suggesting we might buy it as an argument.

Sony and Microsoft have both said they intend to abandon the console and run server-side games services to thin clients. MSFS_X would work fine on your phone then....

& Russia doesn't count right ? Only English speaking people count. When operation Barbarossa started the Russians had 1,635 I-16 fighting against the Emils.

Yes, lets not encourage more fantasy aircraft eh ? Sukhoi offered a variety of AESA radars for foreign buyers of the Su-27/30/xx, but didn't field them. Oh no - now we'll have 50 pages of request for EASA radar on Su-27 :

Didn't the US find when they got hold of some Russian kit after the wall came down that US IR seekers were quite good at rejecting US flare, but not Russian flares, and that Russian seekers were quite good at rejecting Russian flares, but not US flares....

^^ As bbrz said - it's not a bug, that's how they're set up IRL because as you flare the nose is in your view & if the landing lights pointed there you wouldn't see the near section of runway you're about to land on, so you look out and down to the left & that's where the lights illuminate.

I haven't checked for a while, but while before release it did exactly that, at release it didn't - what it used to do at release (but might not now) was emulate a system that generated a track & if it lost lock (behind a building or tree) it would continue to track that path and speed, and if within some time period it found the object back in its view (because it re-appeared), would pick up the lock again. If the tracked object changed direction or speed while out of sight, it would lose the target.

Anyone else flying as Red after changing to 2.5.5.32299 ? Red doesn't seem to have any GPS. Inertial navigation is fine, but the aircraft doesn't know where it is in the world. The only difference between these two screenshots is that the aircraft was swapped between Aus and Russia. Aus correctly sees the route as starting beneath the aircraft, Russia sees the route beginning 4,000 NM WNW … I've tester air, runway and hot ramp starts, but not cold, and it's the same for each. As you fly or change WP in the Russian aircraft the direction and distance to the next WP changes correctly (allowing for the 4,000 NM displacement) so the INS is fine, just the 'origin' in the calcs is incorrect. I wondered if this was to do with & in DCS Red use GLONASS, and there's no alignment off GLOSNASS ? If so - if we can have a fantasy pylon and Igla loadout on the Ka-50, how about either automatically switching to GLONASS if Red (& just pretending it's a compatible system), or just assuming the Red side uses Western GPS ?

This thread has been a classic example of how the internet works. 2 people repeat over and over (truly ad nauseum) their own mistaken belief that: 1/ The Ka-50 only ever existed as an experimental precursor to the Ka-52 that was dropped by the Russian military because of its single cockpit (despite being repeatedly told that there are 15 - 16 examples in service today - Does the fact there were only ever 21 B2 built mean they were never taken into production ?) & 2/ The Ka-50 at some stage had a variant with 3 pylons - despite having absolutely no evidence of this beyond a failure of imagination regarding an unexplained switch position label in the cockpit. & eventually so many people have read what they say that their statements become evidence of their own truth, and a myth begins.... By E.D.'s own admission, a Ka-50 with 3 pylons or with mounted Igla is an imaginary airplane. Not a little known experimental version of the Ka-50, just an exercise in imagination. I don't understand how a community so nit picky about details, and that can argue so strenuously against flight aids as 'cheats', are so happy that E.D. have decided to build a fantasy version of the aircraft because it will make flying it so much more fun.... It's not a simulation of something if the thing its simulating is imaginary, and a 3 pylon Ka-50 with IGLA is an imaginary aircraft (either something Chizh just wanted to do 'cause he liked the idea, or the 'least' imaginary thing E.D. could think of to add the existing module to tempt people into buying another version & so fund the upgrade on the existing Black Shark module).

What ???

I strongly suspect that the Igla (Now it's pointed out, 'Eagla' sounds good :-) is being added to the "Ka-50ED" as a concession to future MAC offline players.... Doesn't matter though - as long as they put a setting in the ME to let servers force them off if they want to enforce realistic loadouts. (you could just remove Igla from all airbases, but some aircraft should have access...

You keep saying this, but it's not much more true than saying that if you know what's in the F/A-18C you know what's in the F-5E Tiger 2 In both cases the newer airframe is a development from the older, but the F/A-18C and F-5E T2 are not the same aircraft manufactured on different day, and neither are the Ka-50 and Ka-52

Then you don't understand what mythical means. This is a very rare, but real animal. If you make a model of this, you're making a model of a real thing - even though there are only a few in the world, and none left in the wild. This is an imaginary animal. The Ka-50 with a MLWS is like the former - rare, but real The Ka-50 with a third rail is like the later - a mythical creation I think that the whole argument about whether an imaginary third rail to hold the IGLA is acceptable might be secondary to the fact that if you read the Russian Ka-50 thread there's pretty much a consensus (including from E.D.) that the Ka-50 never actually fielded "needles" on any airworthy airframe: Игл Eagle Игла Needle

I don't get why you persist in flogging a dead horse - just accept that the Ka-50 never had a third set of pylons. WRT to your post above, the significant part is: Perhaps Kamov intended to add extra pylons, perhaps they didn't. Maybe it was Elbit's idea... Kamov didn't add them to initial builds of the Ka-52 which were built after the Ka-50-2. Perhaps they dreamed that one day there'd be ground mapping radar in the Ka-50 - it's added to the Ka-29, why shouldn't we have it here too ? In the end, they didn't do either thing, and asking for them to be added to a module is asking for imaginary features. If you really want to get E.D. to add extra pylons because you think it would improve gameplay, that's fine - just ask for that...

No, this: Just unsubstantiated mud-slinging.

Oh come on - don't go being reasonable - you're spoiling all the fun of people that have waited months and months to complain about something

the post immediately above yours ^

1, I'm pretty sure the people saying it's 20GB that unpacks to 40GB are right, and 2/ try - On the last day of your billing period, start the download and at the point where you finish your quota, break the connection. Next day start again and it should just pick up where it left off

Yes, for a long time.

You think ? That technological superiority of the Europeans didn't lead to peaceful outcomes for the countries they made parts of their empires as sources of resources - and even if they were peaceful, you think we would be ? Technologically inferior or not - someone would take offense at their 'otherness' and end up killing one somehow (leaving aside how the planet's religious groups would react...)

There is no "third A-A rail" with the Iglas. It's been asked repeatedly, but if anyone can find an image of a Ka-50 with a third rail - please show it, everyone is waiting (& wondering why people keep insisting it exists). Even the initial Ka-52 didn't have it. Saying that an aircraft that was derived from the Ka-50 received it at some much later date means that the Ka-50 must have had it too is like insisting that the F-5E should be able to carry mavericks because the F/A-18C can. For those who think it activates the invisible third pylon - what do you think you push to uncage the seeker ?