blkspade

As somewhat noted above, pixel response is typical GTG (gray to gray), which is individual pixels changing from gray to white and back to gray. Refresh rate is where its updating the entire screen per second. The only difference here between an LCD and CRT here is the whole LCD in bulk compared CRT's per line update which induces flicker.

The A-10 is likely excluded from this problem since the engines are above the wing and thus need an additional pump to get fuel to them in the first place.

While I don't know the details for Su-25 specifically, but generally fuel flows to engines with some help from gravity. So if you aren't pulling some positive G's while inverted, you'll eventually run out of reserve during inverted flight. 20 secs is a lot time compared to the AFM fighters which seems to be 8-10secs before flame out.

Except 120mi isn't far when your simulating a battlefield based around aerial combat. Its not likely most mission designers are going to place massive amounts of ground units where human interaction is unintended. An enemy/own EWR or AWACS could be well outside of your bubble but be constantly interacting with you at the same time. Or a long range sam site that exist solely to keep out of an area or on task. The entire area of play is already functionally a bubble (since the whole world isn't simulated), just a really large one, that still is technically too small for certain scenarios. What you're think of with triggers isn't a real bubble. AI will already largely be doing nothing if there isn't something to be antagonizing it or in the range of its sensors. Its still has to be polling continuously for that 'in range' condition to be true.

The reason the bubble concept fails is that the main point in "Simulation" is to provide a large living environment that supports actions/activities independent of direct human interaction. Just like things don't cease to exist or stop happening in real life just because they aren't in your line of sight. The exact things that separate simulation from games, are the attempts at realism and scale. That said the biggest problem currently is that the sim/engine has no real way to make sense of current hardware to use it at its fullest potential. A good portion of that ties to the DX9 API. That fact alone relies too heavily on single core IPC, and no DX9 titles I've ever encountered manage to make real use of more than 2 cores. When they first announced the A-10C, DX11 consideration was mentioned and really the only thing that excited me. That was shelved right along with Nevada. Even if they can't figure out some method of multi-threaded AI calculations, the rendering can be as better provided by the API itself.

Some games don't handle dynamic clock speed shifts very well, and often can lead to very unpredictable behavior. You can either have performance hampered by it not knowing how ask for max clock, or just as bad having it establish a baseline at load based on the lower clock and have the game become uncontrollably fast when cpu clocks up.

You really need to be completely on top of your energy management in the P-51. I have the opposite problem of nearly overtaking the AI Dora in the climb most of the time. If I take too long trying to line up the guns I tend to end up colliding in the climb.

Oh well that probably as simple as the TF15A not being the exact same plane as the F-15C. Base weight is different as are the engines.

Formation flying falls under combat training. If you consider the fact the world of civilian flight generally prefers planes stay as far away from each other as possible. There is kind of a lot missing from DCS to be a worthwile civil sim. To learn any of the modules in their entirety pretty much means learning things that would solely have combat in mind. These being combat aircraft and all, even flying them at the edge of their envelope pretty much constitutes combat preparation.

I don't know if the two things are connected in some way with state of the PFM ground handling, but at times the Eagle will actually continue to accelerate on the ground at idle power.

From what I've gathered from other posts about the flanker, it supposedly rather realistically wants to nose down. The system that the S key disables is what actively prevents that in normal flight. So you needing to be pulling the stick or very ready to do so immediately upon pressing it to do the cobra.

You can extrapolate a number of things from the combination of radar and RWR info. The maximum range that pretty much all fighter sized targets show up in sim is 62nm. Strikers can be about 73nm, and awacs and tankers(?) can be seen further than 80nm. The lines on the VSD (radar) line up with the dot on the RWR between 10-2oclock. If a contact has its radar on at a given range and bearing that lines up, certain assumption can be made until your in range for NCTR to take affect (24.9nm).

I think he's saying that its looks like its on the notch just shy of the .500 mark.

I believe it was mentioned before that when the jet is added to a mission without weapons the pylons actually aren't apart of the flight model, even when they were still being rendered.

Sun light > than all other sources of light.

Its the fact that the executables are the same, and BS existed first.

No, the AIM-120C would still go active, and subsequently miss if they maneuvered. Unless they are in the F-15 at high altitude in which case maneuvers are impossible.

Honestly anything that isn't DOA and manages to be filled or nearly filled at least once prior to the end of the warranty period should give you no problems.

Doesn't sound like the problem is in issuing radio commands, but he's having the AI response loop bug.

See the problem with that is the concept of "Red Flag" only makes sense in real life, where I hear there are no respawns IRL. There are a set of rules and conditions to setup their simulated combat/training scenarios. Something ultimately redundant in a consumer level combat simulator. Other than having some new dirt to look at, Nevada is not particularly functional in the common multi-player server environment.

I have the Obutto Ozone as well. Given all that comes with the base model and its very modular design, its a way better buy than the playseat. I had a particularly crappy desk and even worse plastic chair prior to getting it. It was a complete chore to operate the warthog stick at desk height.

If you're not absolutely sure how to check without external views, then there is a good chance you failed to raise the gear that time. But yes next to the flaps indicator. I've had a couple times where I was quite sure I had raised my gear and didn't take time to glance down at the indicator. If my wingman hasn't already shouted at me about it, I pick up on it pretty much immediately after glancing at the fuel indicator.

It means you forgot to raise your landing gear. Fuel won't flow from your externals while your gear is down. So you'll see the needle moving as the internal fuel gets depleted. If you raise your gear after this point, fuel will flow from the external back into the internal tanks.

The only exportable screen in the F-15 is the VSD. After selecting one of the MFD multi-display options in DCS, CTRL+Enter should display the screen.

My issue has been that it always seemed illogical to feed from is to loiter. It makes the center tank basically pointless. If there is any level of control over that IRL, the SSM could account for it. Plus there is an offset in the wing tanks with no crossfeed functionality. Yet you can't actually idle an engine to induce balance.