LostOblivion

I know. My point was that it would be difficult to maintain two of the same aircraft in the game. If FC3 is an expansion to FC2, it would stipulate that the MiG-29S *must* be available in the game, either as how it was in FC2, or as an updated FC3 version. However, if they released a DCS: MiG-29S, it would mean that they need to maintain two types of the same aircraft in the game, which would be difficult.

How can they add a DCS: MiG-29? What would happen for the ones that own FC3 and not DCS: MiG-29?

Yeah, bad mission design. In one of my missions called "Taking Krymsk", the A-10Cs are held off until they manage to perform SEAD on enemy SAMs around Krymsk. By that time, the Ka-50s in the missions have arrived at the FOB ready to refuel and rearm for some action. ;) I'm thinking of upgrading it to current version.

Is it not possible to create a generalized AFM for jets? Instead of SFMs that feel crappy to fly with, would it not be possible to make a general purpose semi-AFM that uses an "average" airframe form, thrust profile, stall profiles, drag profile, all that stuff?

In my opinion the three most important parts of any aircraft in DCS will now be 1. The exterior model. 2. The interior model. 3. AFM. In that order. It seems ED are truly working towards these goals, and if they can meet them for at least one fighter on each side, then there will be a lot of happy campers playing DCSW. Lost

Please close this thread, or start behaving.

In regard to the kBit variable used in the network file mentioned, it is simply a convenient way to convert bits per second into bytes per second, given an 8-bit byte, which is what is eventually stored. You can then write the code as if it was a natural language, e.g., 64*kBit, to easily state that you have a 64 kBit per second network connection. This is common, and encouraged, in programming as it makes readability much better than if you would write a more correct name for the same variable, which would be something like "kilobyteToKilobitRatio". The reason 1024 is used and not 1000 is nothing but arbitrary, but the correctness of the conversion really depends on what you enter. If you measured your network bandwidth from speedtest.net, like me, and it states you have a 9.52 Mbps down/up bandwidth, then it is 9,520 kbits per second, or 9,520,000 bits per second, if the semantics of M, k, and so on, is separated by a factor of 1000. With no regard to the opinions about what size you should really type in, let us say you type in the following. {ADSL.." 9520", 9520*kBit, 9520*kBit}, It would be wrong anyway, because the evaluation in this script uses a separating factor of 1024. Ok, we fix it, we take 9.52 Mbps and convert it to kbit using a separating factor of 1024, we get 9.52*1024=~9748, so we type in the following. {ADSL.." 9748", 9748*kBit, 9748*kBit}, Would this be correct? Might be, but it really depends on what speedtest.net stated their Mbps and kbps in. Garbage in, garbage out. When it comes to sizes like these, it usually does not matter what you use as long as you agree on what to use. Lost

There will eventually come a time when, also from a marketing point of view, there will be great value in making an eastern aircraft, as the game will not be "complete" if every player ends up playing for the western side. This time is not now, but it will eventually come. I'm assuming ED will model a Russian aircraft after the next big module. Edit: This time is not now because there is usually enough people on both sides in multiplayer (based on my own observations, naturally).

What does it say?

The environment I am talking about is essentially everything that is decoupled from the A-10C as a whole. In other words, all the things that would have been done anyway had they swapped out the development of the A-10C with any other aircraft. The list of features, bugfixes, and changes that have been made, not in relation to a specific aircraft, but to the general environment, is significant, and until we got seperate patch notes for DCSW many people considered it part of the A-10C or individual products. My point is that third party developers is dependent on ED for making these improvements to the game and thus spend no, or little time on them themselves compared to when ED release a quality product, giving them more time to develop their aircrafts. If that makes sense... Lost

Note that when ED made the A-10C they not only created the aircraft itself, but also a huge environment around it, in order for it to be a success to the customers. Third parties are only focused on the aircraft, as they cannot even touch anything else. I would think that if you are in a good position to know or learn a lot about a specific aircraft and also not just being a good programmer, but being an excellent developer, like beczl seems to be, I can see one airframe being a reasonable project to finish for one very skilled person.

Yes it does indeed matter. I live in Norway, one of the most expensive countries in the world. I work as a software developer at a medium sized consultancy and make, well, a lot more than that! But it does not make any sense unless you put it up against the expenses. An example would be a 0.5 litre of beer at any bar, costing about $16 per unit, so yeah, very expensive! Living expenses in most other countries are much lower, so they naturally have lower salaries, which is fine until you go on vacation...

Not to mention 180,000 USD per year is pretty bad for five software engineers. Actually, that is quite unrealistic.

"Russian aircraft suck" is why.

Why not? Too easy answer. I think you can. They both have a lot in common.

Lol, I don't even know what larfing means. :-S

I am not arguing, I am just trying to clarify. Metric and binary?

I had to laugh there as most of your copy-paste from the wikipedia-article has nothing to do with what I wrote earlier. With regard to the part about unit multiples, I suggest you read it again, especially the paragraph where it says "The software and computer industries often use binary approximations of the SI-prefixed quantities". What it means is simply that it is common to do so, but as the article indirectly states is that it is an inaccurates usage that has sprung from convenience, which is why the less used term, but correct term, kibi, and so on should really be used instead. This is clearly a confusing subject to many, when in reality it is quite simple.

You are correct on everything except this. The semantics of kilo does not change simply because of the fact that the environment is a binary number system. The meaning of kilo has always been "thousand" with no respect to a number base, e.g., 10^3 in the base-10 system. By stating that kilo all of a sudden means 1024 in a base-2 computer environment, you are dirrctly changing its definition to mean the number given by 2^10, which has absolutely nothing to do with "kilo". Ki, or kibi means a multiplum of 1024, or 2^10. K, or kilo means a multiplum of 1000, or 10^3. And there is no "power of 8" as you described it involved in the discussion of the semantics of kilo.

Right... I want more FARPs. The one we have is huge and has, what, three pads? I want a real small one with one very small pad, as well as a few others in different shapes and sizes. By the way, George, blue is actually warmer...ironic.

Noticed this as well. Very unimportant, though, as this cannot possibly break immersion since it is only noticable in external view.

I read "Missile Awareness Day".

There seems to be a confusion about the semantics of the orders of amounts of bytes. There is no "one standard" that is all-defining. The meaning of kB, MB, and so on means different things in different standards. For example, the meaning of "KB" in the JEDEC standard for memory quantities is defined to be 1024 bytes. However, by convention, and by intuitional inference of the meaning of "kB" in the SI system, dictates it to be defined as 1000 bytes (kilobyte). Furthermore, the IEC standard defines "KiB" (kibibyte) to be 1024 bytes. As a computer programmer working in a computer software company, I claim myself to I have a justified word on the topic, which is that it usually does not matter what you define it to be, as long as it is well understood and unambiguous to the others working on the program what you mean. 1024 bytes is 1024 bytes anyway. However, I must say that as a Norwegian using the SI system for all of our national measurement systems, I find it strange when people define 1 kB to be 1024 bytes. 1 kilobyte is 1000 bytes, not 1024. Lost

Ah ok. What about interior models?

Double post.