whitehot

oh man

i don't rly know, but I think the truth stays between 256 and 512. i use 512 evry frame

yep, I get the feeling that there are limitations in the game engine about how much complex could be the damage model for ground vehicles

I still haven't pre-ordered but I'm gonna do it next week since I'm all curious about CA. I was wondering, if the FAC role on the red side has received (or will receive) some improvement. As it is now, it's practically non-existant, and not even comparable to the blue side system. I looked around the web and information on this issue is somewhat sketchy, in fact I still don't get how the FACs fit into Soviet/Russian doctrine. Seems to me that blue has a strong advantage on this, although if i have to choose between realism and game balance I'd go for realism all the times

[quote name= The M829A3 is specifically meant to work against the latest ERA armor and still penetrate a tank, and when you look at it's muzzle velocity you can see something very telling.... It's fast. 1,555 meters per second given public data. Which means that you can have a T-80U fire at the M1 at 5km first with his AT-11B, but he's going to kick up a little dust and smoke from firing, and the M1 actually has time to either pop smoke and evade the missile... Or it can fire back. Given the short flight time of the M829A3, something like 3 to 4 seconds to reach 5km you might get two or even three shots off at the most likely stationary T-80 at 5km, and if any of them hit, even if not killing the T-80 would certainly knock the aim of the laser or damage other components. look, afaik at 5kms anysabot round would at most scratch the paint of any modern mbt. I love reading this technical stuff about weapons systems and btw, thanks for the links. Now, surely this data should provide the base for any decent simulation, but you have to consider other parameters. First; as you stated, this data is provided mostly by the manufacturers of these systems. We all know how they extrapolate it, they test their products in ideal (sometimes even favorable) environments, and provide the numbers (and would be naive believing that those numbers don't get some rounding in the process). Real situations are much different. Statements like "the 3BXX round can penetrate the M1A1 frontal armor at 2000 mts" are all but misleading. Were those true, an M1A1 tank should be totally impervious to older tanks like t-55 or t-62 from any angle. Yet, real engagements reports, with pictures attached, tell us that in the gulf we've had Abrams written off as combat losses by hits from t-55s, 100mm static AT guns, and RPG-7 (with the old round). You describe an engagement supposed to occur at 5000 mts; that scenario could happen only in open desert. In a setting like Georgia, 90% of MBT on MBT combat would be at distances within 1000 mts, without taking account of buildings, trees, and a terrain which is not at all flat. Anyway, at 1000mts, any sabot round hit is likely to cause a loss of the MBT. Maybe the T-80 would explode and throw of its turret, with the loss of 2/3 of the crew, while the Abrams would just sit there and burn with a shaken but largely alive crew managing to get out.. But for our purposes both tanks would be gone. Moreover, I wouldn't say that the T-80U is a match to the M1A2, since the first is the same tank it was in the mid '80s, while the latter is the most upgraded tank in the US armory. You should put T80Us on M1A1, and T-90 upgraded versions (which come with a thermal sight by default) on M1A2.

Wonderful news. The english talking russians are something annoying to me too

did a reinstall of world and all the modules and it now works fine. I wonder how long though.

I feel ya. I tried to bring up the issue aswell several times both here and @ amd. Sadly, the most detailed reply i could read was about two lines saying that this sim engine will never support crossfire or sli. Something about missing "empty cpu cycles not available for sli" (which, if I have to say, seems pretty silly to me). I have a 6990 hence i have to run dcs like a 6970. What puzzles me is that we get perfect crossfire scaling for games like dirt showdown, which don't need it anyway; while we can't enable it on demanding engines who'll benefit the most. Call me conspiracy but I'm willing to bet there's some distorted commercial logic behind this

i don't know man, i have no security application aside from a firewall and an antimalware; this system is almost clear, as i reformatted the hd last week. I have played the sim for about three day, now I'm all without it.

Ok, today i turn on the rig, fire up dcs and go for a quick mission in an abkhaz ka-50, mostly to do some graphics tuning. At the moment where the sim should come up, i get this error instead: --------------------------- Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library --------------------------- Runtime Error! Program: C:\DCSWORLD\bin\dcs.exe This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way. Please contact the application's support team for more information. --------------------------- OK --------------------------- after that: [Window Title] DCS [Main Instruction] DCS has stopped working [Content] Windows can check online for a solution to the problem. [^] Hide problem details [Check online for a solution and close the program] [Close the program] Problem signature: Problem Event Name: APPCRASH Application Name: dcs.exe Application Version: 1.2.0.3205 Application Timestamp: 4ff3450d Fault Module Name: ka50_protect.dll Fault Module Version: 5.70.33.0 Fault Module Timestamp: 4ff342b1 Exception Code: 40000015 Exception Offset: 00000000006de75e OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1 Locale ID: 1033 Additional Information 1: 593d Additional Information 2: 593ddcd09f6ae6bbb318c268704004f1 Additional Information 3: 9fef Additional Information 4: 9fef4ba1fd09b8e0762c94b61d96d2b1 Read our privacy statement online: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=104288&clcid=0x0409 If the online privacy statement is not available, please read our privacy statement offline: C:\Windows\system32\en-US\erofflps.txt same goes with the hawg and the toad. Can't fire up dcs no more. :helpsmilie:

yep, but how does it affect the sim? i guess systems with large rams could use a higher setting, but will this improve fps?

last night i was fooling around with the editor and placed a red farp. while looking at the ac list in the farp i noticed there is a "KA-52" entry. Is that some sign of things to come?..

thx, i'm getting the mouse trouble aswell. never happened with 1.1 though

i 've had the problem with the former version. the last one runs pretty well for me

yeah, kopp 's crusade to get australia the raptors has produced some amazing pieces of journalism. btw, while reading some of those, i got an interesting dejavu: in the 80s, as a kid i've happened to put my hands on a copy of "Soviet Military Power". i always remember my dad saying "don't take that too seriously; it's written by the same guys who want the US military budgets to be bigger", or something like that. back then, i could hardly understand what that meant. now i think i get it.

true

What physx could achieve is to have a extremely realistic damage model: as an example; with the actual model, when your mav hit a t-72, the "intact" tank model is simply substituted with a new one, blackened and burning. With physx, the 3d model is not substituted; instead, the engine calculates all the effects the munition does on the target, and deforms its model (and the munition one) accordingly. These effects would be based on a lot of parameters like warhead type and weight, angle of impact, armor type, point of impact and many more. The result would be awesome, in fact any single event would be distinct and almost unrepeatable. I'd love something like this, but I'm not sure if dcs engine (and the current hardware) could handle it.

from what i know about directx, there won't be a shift in load from the cpu to the gpu. There will be however a substantial performance gain, since dx11 are more "efficient" at handling large numbers of hi-res texels. Often ppl spend big bucks on upgrading cpus and gpus yet they find the improvement in fps negligible. That's because of directx9. In many cases, they are the bottleneck. We've been stuck with them since 10 yrs, back then they were appropriate to the hardware of the time, but now they're completely outdated. It's like you'd try to run dcs with a 300 Mhz pentium2. Sadly, this situation has endured so much due to the malignant effect consoles have on gaming in general.

yeah thats fo sho

btw, what about the A-10A in FC3? with FACs and everything the pod could be of use in that case

i agree in the fullest. Time and resources should be spent on much more pressing features. Besides, i don't think that without the pod, the ac would look so different

I'd like the su-9/11 more. Also a yak-28. And a fiddler. I'd give up anything for a fiddler.:helpsmilie:

oh man .. this reminds me dark, cold, winter afternoons; spent into fc2 editor trying to build up something realistic, while smoking lots of cigs.. it was like being on time acceleration, i could start at 1500 and next time i look at the clock it was bedtime..

yeah, that's my thought aswell. but since time and resources are limited (lets say that a dcs ac takes about one year to fully develop) i would prefer to have a new multi-role ac like the hornet or maybe an interdictor like the fencer or tornado, or havocs and apaches.. i mean the list is long and if mission variety is one important factor in keeping "the fun" alive, mho would be that transport fixed/rotaries should place towards the end of that list..with all due respect to cargo flyers

Are you saying that failure to configure the iff transponder on mission start will open up the possibility that my a-10c would be torn apart by aim-120s from one zealous bvr f-15c pilot?? oh man that would be absolutely awesome! my imagination goes to what happens after the a-10 pilot is rescued, and he meets the f-15 pilot in the bar a few evenings after the "accident"..