SwingKid

Goeth asked her a few questions to get clear on her objections, then simply said, "Shoot her." She was executed on the spot, after which Goeth said, "We can't have these people arguing with us." He then added, "Now tear it down and rebuild it just like she said."

Is there a way to save that debriefing to a file?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=805174#post805174 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=805274#post805274

The rise of Russian-developed flight sims comes with the death of dynamic campaigns.

because inflatable decoy success = F-22 failure?

IIRC, the impulse and thrust in Fleeman's AIM-7 Sparrow example don't compute, and he offers no explanation.

За остальное, DCS не нужен. ;)

Насколько я видел, запись разрушения моста и повреждения авиабазы в DCS не работает. SkyWars2 пока невозможен.

так бывает...

зачем только ролики? Мне интересует видет ЗРК С-125М :)

Is there a way to assign a map object as a target using MOM? Neither I nor ED could find the way to do it. Also, as far as I know, MOM API was removed from DCS, no? Last time I checked, lua exported data did not report which unit was destroyed (unless it was a player aircraft), but rather only its type - and all ground objects were simply named "building," making them indistinguishable. Even LO's own Debriefing window was incapable to properly record damage/destruction of airbases - if it worked at all, the runway was simply identified as "building." Two such programmers already tried, and succeeded to the maximum extent that it was possible - "Storm" and "Skywars" projects. The development did not stop as a result of their boredom, or lack of will.

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about Google Earth's satellite imagery. If you clck on the "Geographic Web->Panoramio" box in the "Geographic Web" layer, there are numerous eye-level photos of the new terminal building at Sochi that aren't easily found on aviation photography websites.

Opinions differ on what the "essentials" of a dynamic campaign are. For some, any randomness - regardless of realism (e.g. should the enemy AI flight path really be going through a mountain?) - counts as a dynamic campaign. For others, Falcon 4's real-time GUI sets the bar. One middle-of-the-road criteria I like is, "if I destroy a bridge in mission 1, then enemy units don't cross that bridge in mission 2." For that to be satisfied, it isn't sufficient for TacView to record simple score-keeping data, "player 1 destroyed three buildings" - it's necessary to identify which buildings (or tanks, airplanes, etc.) were destroyed. I'd surprised if you could obtain this level of detail from lua-exported mission data, regarding destroyed map objects at least. Speaking as someone who's tried, I don't recommend this project to you. Too many DCS features are still "up in the air" and being changed by ED from original Flanker 2.0 code. If ED can remove the entire Su-25T flight model, they won't hesitate to remove whatever Taciew exports a 3rd party DC depends on when they feel the need - as they did with the saved campaign data that the SkyWars DC used. What does ED need it for, anyway? A meaningful dynamic campaign is not like a new skin or terrain add-on - it's an active, integrated computer program that depends on cooperation from the sim developer. The scraps of, almost accidentally-exported data you describe are not a substitute for a working partnership.

I would guess it's a holdover from the way terrain was modeled in Flanker 2 - when your Su-27 went off the tarmac, your nosewheel would slowly sink and get "stuck in the mud" after a short time. If you tried to move after getting stuck, your aircraft would explode. Maybe something similar here. The way your nosewheel is twisted around almost 90 degrees looks suggestive - as if the terrain grabbed onto your nosewheel and wouldn't let go.

My impression is that certain Russian airframe manufacturers have exclusive partnership deals with certain Russian avionics firms - and those under-the-table agreements are successful at leaving competitors out in the cold. We saw this before with the MiG-29K - which carried Zhuk planar antenna radar, R-77, Kh-31, etc. - vs. Su-27K, which was stuck with same tired old variants of MiG-29A radar and R-27, introducing no new avionics at all. In this case it seems that Mil's experience and market position gave them exclusive advantages with integrated military avionics - RWR, mast-mounted radar, etc. - where Kamov scrambled to bundle in a hodge-podge of whatever standalone, off-the-shelf products were left on the market (ABRIS, laser warning detector, and whatever that super-secret two-LED thumbstick was, that they stuck to the HUD frame with hockey tape). Note that even the Shkval and Vikhr - having a precedent as "Sukhoi"-associated products - would have been available and exempt from any such MiG/Mil avionics monopoly. The idea that an RWR was deemed impractical seems particularly dubious when they decided to install a laser detector. You can jam or suppress scanning radar-guided AAA long before it shoots at you if you detect it first - what are you supposed to do against a tank shell that's already inbound?