VincentLaw

You should find and link to posts when you claim people said things. Here are some relevant posts, which contradict your statement. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1855109&postcount=521 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1855180&postcount=555 (also, make sure you install everything together twice lol) http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1855248&postcount=587

Kind of glitchy, but here is an example of a SFM airplane with the nose wheel in the back. You won't really notice as long as you stick to 3 point takeoffs and landings. ED actually already did that with the AI FW-190, but I cobbled together a flyable version with the Su-25T cockpit. Edit: My forum upload seems to have failed. Have a dropbox link instead. https://www.dropbox.com/s/7sevmm56lenypv8/TailDraggerTest.zip

AFM currently allows for up to 3 wheels. You may be able to get up to 4 wheels with SFM. It shouldn't matter if you put the third wheel in the front or back. I'm not sure if that would invert steering with the SFM though, It would be simple enough to test. I will check when I get a chance.

One of my favorite things about the DCS UH-1H is how you can customize the exhaust nozzle and hardpoint racks in the mission editor, and I imagine the same thing could be done for features like this on the Mirage. (the refueling probe being another example)

It really boils down to this. Simulator developers, entertainment or not, must provide specs that people are willing to pay for without exceeding sustainable operating costs. EDGE was created because the consumers/contractors want better specs, but we don't already have it because of the development cost.

So what are they going to do when... A: The batteries on their satellites hit the cycle limit and die. B: The satellites all deorbit in a few years because they are in LEO. C: The FCC says no.

From what I have seen, Nevada is basically finished. Now they are working on EDGE integration and testing. So scrapping Las Vegas would actually increase dev time.

I just played your mission and it was good fun. I would definitely like more missions like it. First person oriented ground missions are a nice diversion from the super high fidelity aircraft of DCS. Very enjoyable as long as you can overlook the AI and ground detail (and that second problem is mostly going away with EDGE). Honestly, the vehicle damage model isn't any worse than games like Battlefield, the weapons modeling is even more realistic, and the variety of vehicles and nations to pick from is great.

At first I was wondering where my post went. Why did you open two of the same thread? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=120689

In ramp start you can start with an unfolded sheet of A4 copy paper.

They should really sticky this post.

Yes. Given enough computing power, you could invisibly simulate all of those paths and their consequences and assign a score to each result. Then you could take one of the paths with the highest scores as the actual action (while making sure they don't cluster too much), and perhaps add in an element of randomization or mutation. The key is, as you implied, not so much to actually create intelligence, but to fool the player into thinking the AI is intelligent. After all, if the illusion is convincing enough, what is the difference? Creating an AI that is too perfect, like the terminator Huey door gunners, can also break the immersion.

Clearly you missed this post: I am also disappointed about the T-2, but I am looking forward to the Mirage parce que j'aime la France.

While the philosophical discussion of human vs. machine, the future of computer technology, and intelligence in general is one I am quite interested in, Speed was correct that this is wandering off topic a bit when you dig too far (although I am certain that discussion could find a home in the chit-chat section). You are mistaken that the argument is external with religion though. It is an intrareligious argument because you could also interpret the spirit as being attached to the body without driving the mechanisms of thought. (I checked the forum rules and it doesn't prohibit statements relating to religion) I will try to keep this to as it relates to the dynamic campaign though. I will also preface this by saying that a convincing AI is necessary for a convincing dynamic campaign because proper strategic maneuvers and deployment at the campaign level require just as much intelligence as tactical maneuvers on the battlefield The fact is that it is not necessary to approximate human intelligence when it comes to making a convincing game AI. A combat simulation AI just needs to know what to do and when to do it as it relates to combat. It never needs to distinguish English Baroque from Second Empire, know the precise amounts of force to apply with each muscle in the body to balance a variably loaded body on two legs, identify a friend by only the sound of their footsteps, or even ever have a subjective opinion on anything. All possible behaviors can be preprogrammed to respond to certain conditions that occur within limited scope of the battle or campaign simulation, almost all of which is represented in raw data. There is no chance for the computer to misinterpret anything. It is like an incredibly complex game of chess.

I think this statement misses the trees for the forest. You can simulate combat without simulating a war. A dynamic campaign is essentially the military aspect of an entire war. DCS currently simulates battles (hence The Battle Simulator) which are certainly still combat, although chain of command is lacking in DCS. I would like to see AI commanders implemented before a dynamic campaign is attempted.

ED would probably be willing to accept them as a 3rd party developer or partner. Now all you have to do is convince Bohemia Interactive (probably not going to happen). This applies to anyone who thinks "I wish team X would join DCS" so go lobby your favorite developers to develop for DCS!

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, and confirmed. I have this issue too.

The door gunners worked just fine for me last week (I assume they still do). The flexible sight gunner seems kind of bugged though. I think it gets stuck on targets even if they go out of the firing arc, and then it won't acquire a new target. Make sure you press Ctrl+3 and Ctrl+4 twice for weapons free on the left and right door gunners respectively.

Since this is a combat flight simulator, I have certainly been subjected to my fair share of emergency landings. The hook can probably bring the airplane to a stop more quickly, but the chute has the advantage of working at unprepared locations. If I am forced to land on a road, I generally want to come to a stop as quickly as possible. There are also some runways in DCS that the A-10 will overrun even if you approach at 110 kts.

Delta wings can fly at much higher angles of attack before stalling. The stall angle is usually around 15 degrees for a straight wing, and I think around 30-40 degrees for a delta wing. That is because vortex shedding over the top of a delta wing actually creates lift on the wing. Also, the Mirage instruments are not metric? I just kind of assumed since it is European.

That could very well be this one. Being developed for two platforms means they can put more resources towards it, and much of the resources and experience should be recyclable from the FSX version and the T-2. The F-86 and MiG-21 are pre-1970; IRIS has been mostly silent; no info on the F/A-18C; The Eurofighter and F/A-18E both have more complex avionics and are probably waiting on ED to implement things; and the F-15C and Su-27 won't have clickable pits. The Mirage 2000C is also older than the F/A-18E and Eurofighter, so I would expect it to be more precise from a systems standpoint.

Okay, that is the same as the copy I posted, which is the correct default file. According to the file, the distance label is supposed to show up at 10 km, which is about 6.2 miles, but you said that he doesn't see it until about 3.5 miles. That seems to indicate the problem is somewhere else. I'll see if I can reproduce it by changing some settings.

Because every airplane needs one, right? Apparently the Mirage 2000 has a tailhook module that can be installed for short landings. You can see it in these pictures if you look closely. I can't find any pictures of it actually being used though. There is also a parachute module: Yes, I realize all of those pictures are the wrong version of the plane, but I am wondering if either of these features are a possibility for the DCS Mirage 2000C.

I see it is completely pylon free in the shots. Will we be able to configure the pylons in the final release too? I assume the pylons could be handled in the same way as multiple-ejector racks are with the A-10C. For example, in this picture I found, the aircraft on the left only has 3 pylons equipped, while the others have 5. I am not familiar enough with the Mirage to know if that is a normal thing.

I vaguely remember, but don't care enough to check, that someone said threads initiated in chit-chat and moved to another section of the forum still did not allow you to +rep people in them.