WildFire

LOL. I posted this in August of 2011. Ya'll are still kicking around with it?? WOW, thats staying power.

Well really its only logical. Your asking about zombies in a flight simulator. FLIGHT SIMULATOR. and your asking for zombies. Maybe its just me being crazy stupid but it seems your request is beyond ridiculous. Plenty of people have said it, there are already zombie games everywhere. Another point would be that everything inside DCS is real. There are A-10's and P-51's in real life. All the vehicles included in the game are actual vehicles. This leads me to believe that there is an inherent value put on realism, one that has to exist for a game to approach the level of "high fidelity" simulator. So why all of a sudden should there be a bunch of unrealistic stuff?

Its not, Ive flown a ton of precision approaches and if you line it up right it should always be pretty close to the 3 degree line on the hud.

Probably make a lot more with some american advertising, but maybe thats too expensive to justify. The youtube route I would imagine is working, slowly.

Tossing the idea around this morning, our squad is talking about some kind of way to import data via cartridge into your aircraft while the sim is running. Although it would require some kind of alternate program or lua file to edit manually to create the data it would be well worth it. Im guessing the file already exists because you could just modify the data you program with the "prepare flight" option. An example would be a simple lua file that you could manually edit with waypoints and such, dms profiles and perhaps once in the pit you could use the load function to pull up the file. Perhaps a directory while the lua must be stored before loading the engine so the new load key automatically calls any file inside that directory. Or some kind of interface that lets you choose the file in your documents or something. I think the first method would be easier since the path could be hardcoded and it could be easily added to the load page so you dont have any weird custom interfaces popping up and destroying immersion.

Im gonna say pay special attention here to the words "until" and "at which point", because the original argument was about wind affecting stall (in any way, in any condition: not specified). People keep coming on and saying yes it does in some special way and then continuing with the overall point of saying it does not. Im over it. The flight model isnt really up for a discussion unless your the engineer who programmed it, which is why I've stated many times that the debate on what exactly is in an FM is pointless. You can say "they modeled handling with weapons mounted and handling without weapons which acts very different". But do you know what equations were used to program such, and what variables were used? Do you know the rates of change? Nope, and I would figure neither do the mods or testers unless they were involved with creating the actual equations. This argument is dead, leave it.

Im gonna go with bad installation on this one. Rather than copy the whole folder over manually open up each file and replace the originals. However I advise you rename the original files that are being replaced. To keep it easy to see what I've modified I name everything like: graphics_ORIGINAL.cfg

This doesnt make sense considering you cant ask questions without speaking unless in text which would be rough. You could be waiting for minutes looking for a head nod. Of course theres no way to do hand signals either. So it seems a little pointless. Just my opinion.

There are at least two people I know of doing scenery/terrain addons. Its just they are really slow cause its so time consuming and its usually only one person doing it.

Its semantics really, your trying to be really specific in order to prove your point. And its fail logic. As a logical counter to your argument I will pose this: Suppose wind is not an aerodynamic effect that we have to take into account (which is your point). That would mean wind has no effect at all, while we are flying, because aerodynamic effects are the only effects we are concerned with really. There are other effects like the basic forces of flight that are also to take into account but we already know those. So that is the only possible conclusion. So we have wind but because it doesnt affect the aircraft in any aerodynamic way then its really not a problem. Therefore regardless of the way we maneuver our aircraft we would not enter a stall condition. edit: at least not due to wind. This is your stance correct? Does it not sound logically wrong to you? The point is wind is an aerodynamic effect that the pilot must take into account that if not countered for can help to produce a stall condition. Shamandgg said it, I've read about it, you said it happened to you, its true. Also you cant assume I was simply speaking of IAS, because when programming anything at all it would be assumed in any specific instance you might be using the values for TAS, GS, or IAS. Its not a "well we only use IAS" thing. Flight principles and programming flight principles are two completely different things. Whether your taxiing on the tarmac is going to use GS for the FM and takeoff is going to use a combination of GS and IAS, its just not something you can nail down especially if you havent programmed it yourself. The point is everyone got super ridiculous specific when my original statement about the FM was way way general. This debate never should have started in the first place, you guys are way too critical of the simple stuff people say. And then it got twisted into assumptions about speeds, flight conditions, when the flight was taking place (level flight/approach/landing) all things that were never specified in the original post and were therefore exempt from most of the arguments, because the arguments were very specific. And the explanation was the exact opposite. Extremely critical, again I say it was all for show; tour de force.

I was just implying that I believe there is more talent here because ED tackled not only an accurate flight model for 3 aircraft but also advanced net-code built in house, their own environment with effects, ground vehicle models, terrain and weapons.. A lot of different aspects. It was simply a observation of what has been done totally by both producers, not to discount what BMS has done.

Another assumption to support your own theory. While it is the pilots responsibility to take into account the wind that doesnt mean wind is not a factor. Thats redundant. Wind is the factor the pilot must take into account. Argue just to argue if you must.

Actually if they had to model it it would have been applicable. Just because they didnt have to model it because the effect was already dealt within their model doesnt mean it wasnt an applicable quantity. The original post had a few different variables that could have been included in the equations. Obviously there is not only one way to program stuff. There are many possibilities. I dont even know how and what equations they used to model theirs so I couldnt begin to say. I would venture to say that most if not all of us dont know the exact equations and everything they used to model the FM, part (see the opposite of all) of the reason why they cant just throw it out to others. Therefore because probably no one but the engineers know how they wrote the complete model means it is arbitrary to argue about what has been included or not. Furthermore, there has been a lot of debate about speeds, IAS, TAS, GS... Granted moving in an air mass has no effect unless its a crosswind, then it would seem that while your plane may be moving in direction x but the wind is pushing you in the y direction. Or even Z or X. The moderators immediately assumed we were talking about IAS and came to the conclusion that they were right cause I was obviously wrong saying that wind has no relation on IAS which is correct, however my general statement was wind affects speed, mind you I did not specify which and therefore calling me blatantly wrong in this scenario is a blatant show of tour de force. In that very statement that moderator said that it may affect approach therefore agreeing with my post all along in that one specific circumstance of flight. I find that kind of funny he maintains his correctness any further than that point. You cant agree with someones point and then continue to call them wrong, this isnt politics, come on... There is also much argument on the wind aspect. Depending on where you look at the definition it can include gale forces, or microbursts or many others, or it may not. Picking one definition and believing that is the end all to prove your argument is the same as manipulating facts to support your argument, both are considered bad tactics in the professional debate world. Noodle, I wasnt talking about angle of the aircraft, rather angle of the wind/airflow in relation to the engines and wings among other things. I probably shouldnt have used angle of attack in that case but I did not know a better way to say it. Thank you and thanks for your input shamandgg. I also noticed in the original thread one of the mods went through and picked apart my original post in that thread when it clearly says at the bottom it was a basic explanation. Its not like my post was supposed to actually be physics. See I am a science major, plenty of upper division physics and maths so I have no problem getting into those types of conversations, but in a public medium where people ask a simple question, a simple answer is warranted. It shouldnt be picked apart and judged as if whatever you said wasnt written from the bible (if that sort of thing is important to you). I firmly stand by my belief on these forums that the moderators go way way too far to prove a point to the point where it become a game of "Im right your wrong" and it degrades to a point where I'm no longer willing to debate with child like mentality. Its hard to try to help and answer peoples questions when people are blatantly calling you wrong when your example wasnt meant to be right, only simple. A stong man exhibits both assertion and restraint with equal measure in any argument. Im noticing a bit of a lack or restraint, at least in my opinion.

I was talking about angle of attack, in such there are some cases where wind can be a factor in disrupting airflow over the wings, typically at very low speed and with a bad angle of attack and other associated angles (it is very circumstantial). As far as standard conditions flying is concerned, yes wind doesnt matter. Again the original point was that there are a lot of things to consider in an advanced flight model. The fact that this was attacked as being absolutely wrong when there are conditions in RL that this is true, even if extremely rare due to the amount of wind needed and the particular geometry/attitude of the aircraft, really is sad. Of course in jets its not really an issue by design but light aircraft are obviously more susceptible. Bad case of thread hijacking, which is why its now its own thread, but it really wasnt needed. Debates over the most simple of things get attacked so quickly here. And Tharos your right it doesnt need to be modeled, I was only throwing a bunch of stuff out that could have been used in flight model calculations. Of course it wasnt meant to be an officiall thesis or anything.

Approach and landing is a scenario that has to be programmed with the flight model right? Look I was right, in certain conditions it was correct, I already knew that, I was taking all of those into account for the sake of example. Sorry my example didnt sound as intelligent as anyone elses. The point originally about all the conditions that go into an advanced flight model. The stall was just an example. There really was no need to pick it apart.

Thats a pretty generalized equation, it does not take into account windshear. Also if using a crab angle it affects the efficiency of your airfoils. Your just being nit-picky though and there are lots of scenarios that general equations wont work for, and Im guessing that ED's hardcore engineers do think about all of it. Thats why we have engineers in the first place, to find problems that no one has seen and find solutions to those problems. And I never said airspeed is DECREASED by a tailwind, thats a bit ridiculous. It clearly says "add speed"...

wind speed affects every aspect of speed. Could create drag or provide lift, or add speed in the event of a tailwind. I hope you were joking that was kind of a no-brainer..

An advanced flight model obeys the laws of physics. It is a set of physics equations and algorithms that create a basis for the FM that mimic real life situations. In other words a stall will happen given these conditions and it varies with altitude and pressure and wind and amount of fuel and loadout, weight, drag... Basically there is a shit ton of math that goes into a detailed flight model. Simplified flight models only model some are all conditions with less detail. Say instead a stall always happens at 90 knots no matter what altitude or wind speed. Thats a basic explanation anyhow

Did it ever occur to anyone that the train part might not actually mean driving a train? I would imagine it has much more to do with the SOON TO BE AWESOME supply system and other targets of interest. Maybe some kind of simulator where you control how supplies are moving around the map and so forth and also being to fly the cargo birds that supply distant bases. My imagination has just left the building...... One thing though, ED better come up with a way to bomb runways and give us some good airfield crater animations and munitions. Let us take out a supply line and aerial threats the old fashioned way.

Talent is not measured in revenue. Combat helo is a solid testament to this, which also blows falcon away. My second post was saying you couldnt compare them because the engine was extremely outdated, however the talent in ED I think is much higher than the BMS folks simply because of all the other aspects they have mastered, i.e. weather, seasons, terrain, graphics, and models. Keep in mind a lot of the stuff BMS improved upon already existed in the engine they adopted. Where as ED built everything from scratch from lock-on and before. So BMS upgraded some stuff and added some effects. ED created an entire universe. Granted ED had the revenue and time to do so, but there is nothing stopping BMS from becoming a revenue generating production either. I think the argument is mute.

looks like the second pit is modeled though... **

Omg where do you live, those pictures are awesome, im moving.

Please give my two packages a shot. They do create a new setting like kuky first envisioned however all the addressing is correct as kuky just said about the file structures. I took that into account since the original package was giving me missing textures, which I have since solved (it was easy). If youd like to not overwrite your existing settings give it a shot. Also let me know if it doesnt work as intended. I think it does but I didnt take any screenshot comparisons. also if your running any of the road mods you'll have to paste that vfs texture path back into the graphics config because the graphics.cfg file included is a standard version. Also the better fire and smoke mod will work with these, which I tend to like.

Also it wasnt the optionsdata.lua file causing issues. It was the path to particle effects in the graphics.cfg

Did you try the packages I just put above your post last night right after I wrote that thread you linked to? I did modify every file in the package and paid special attention to every line in all 3 files. I thought it was working fine when I tested it. And yes there are modifications to be made in all three files.