Aginor

Yeah, I would love to have proper jamming in DCSW. That would finally make some real world tactics viable, and not only for fun but to be effective.

Haha, great and so true. I would still love to have a real info about all that in a central place. I mean: There were surely good reasons to carry both Aim-7 and Aim-54 in one loadout. Same as carrying both Aim-120 and Aim-7 on the F-15C (which doesn't make too much sense in DCSW I think, but it does in real life I guess).

Sounds good. Although I would have loved to hear more about those disadvantages you mentioned. The AIM-54 is seen as some kind of magical remote destruction device by many people, and I think it might be an advantage to have information about its weaknesses available before release so we can point people complaining they don't hit to that information. :)

One of the books I read recently explains that process rather well, I am not quite sure anymore but I _think_ it was "Scream of Eagles" by Robert Wilcox. The pilots were amazed how agile the Phantom was, nobody had really tried to dogfight with it before.

Thanks to everyone involved in the Mistral project! A wonderful tribute to our friend Lilkiki.

Cool, thanks for the update!

The existing user-made frameworks support rectangular and even polygonal zones. ...I'd still like to have them in stock DCSW.

+1

Also now that I think about it it seems that the hydraulics gauge (and the switching of the gauge to the other reservoir as described in the manual) wasn't working. I am not sure that the gear not moving is a hydraulics problem, it happens even a few seconds (perhaps even instantly) after the engine went down (I used the kill switch), while it is still spinning, so there should still be hydraulics pressure I think.

EDIT: Double post because I am too dumb to use a browser. See my real post below.

Ok, I just hopped in and tried it. It seems it doesn't work yet. I tried that lever and cycling the gear, and nothing happened. I also think the hydraulics system is still WIP, because I can't imagine that the hydraulics fail that quickly. I think in real life it is a emergency reservoir system. The manual also seems to hint at that.

There is an emergency gear lever. Don't know how (and if) it works though.

Yes, I think if it had weapons to play with I would miss the AFM a bit less. But since with an unarmed trainer the focus is pretty much only on procedures and flying you miss it a bit more. Just flying around you won't miss it much, but when reaching the edges of the envelope or on the ground the SFM is a bit weird. I mean: A few years ago during the LockOn days we would have been happy as clams with that flight model, but that's the past I guess. :D

Yeah, and when you disconnect you might hit the boom and explode. Happened to me a few times. Related to this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2866052#post2866052

Yeah, it flies quite nicely even with the SFM but... just not the same. I just hop in once or twice after each new patch to check out the status and provide the guys with a bug report or two, but I'm not really into it without the AFM.

Nicht dass ich wüsste. Belsimtek halt. Da kann jeden Moment was kommen oder nicht.

Can't remember seeing a Gazelle with six HOTs. Perhaps they mixed it up with the Bo-105?

1: A = Yes 2: C = more like 18 Months. But maybe they will surprise me. 3: B = AV-8B 4: Tough one. I tend to say A = Yes, it will add some very interesting gameplay features to DCS 5: ....meh. Can't answer that one. I tend to say "A", but to me the answer is: If they are confident they can pull it off in 2017/2018, yeah, then go for the AV-8B

AFAIK it is up to the guys who want to create the planes. When you form a third party ED will not tell you which plane you have to create. I think I recall reading somewhere there are some planes (list unknown) that ED won't give third party licenses for, because they want to do them themselves, don't know anything about it though. In most cases a plane getting made or not depends on these factors - skill to do so (you have to prove your skills to ED as a third party, ot sure how) - information available about the plane (enough for ASM/AFM) - license available - other legal restrictions - money/time (the license might be too expensive for example, or you only have one programmer so you will need ten years to create the plane) And then of course third parties (and ED) might prefer making planes people care about. I remember Razbam creating a poll for that for example.

Yeah looks nice.

It doesn't matter. Having threads run on different cores has advantages, everyone has a multi-core CPU, and it is good practice to have threads running on different cores, which is what systems try to do. Yes, it is not the same, but it really doesn't matter. People not understanding multi-threading won't understand it more easily if you get one level of abstraction more into it. Let's just pretend every core can do one thread, it is absolutely sufficient to explain the problems with multiple threads AND/OR cores. People look at their four cores and wonder why only two of them are doing something, they don't see the threads. So with all due respect, all of what you just wrote is completely undecipherable for someone who is not a programmer. That's exactly why we are doing simple examples here. :)

I think the "cake example" fits here rather well: Imagine you have a program that can bake a cake. It does the following steps: 1 heat the oven (5 min) 2 prepare the ingredients for the dough (10 min) 3 create the dough from the ingredients (10 min) 4 bake the cake (30 min) 5 prepare the frosting (5 min) 6 apply the frosting (10 min) 7 decorate the cake (5 min) All in all: 75 minutes of work. It runs single threaded, everything is done one at a time. Now let's change it to multi-threading. YAY! Let's see: 1 can be done while 2 and 3 are running 3 waits for 2 4 waits for 3 5 can be done while 1,2,3,and 4 are running 6 waits for 4 and 5 7 waits for 6 You have four cores so you could theoretically do four simultaneously. So you can erase the time for..... 1 and 5 actually. That's it. So while multithreading may seem like you can get those 75 minutes down to 40 minutes, you can actually only reduce the workload by 10 minutes and you have never more than two cores running. BUT you have a huge organization overhead (the cores have to talk to each other) and have to re-write all your code. It isn't worth it. I hope this simplified example makes the problem a bit more clear. :)

Yes we do. See it that way: We have already read and seen on screenshots that there will be a new lighting system soon. We don't know exactly about all its features, but I'll go out on a limb here and say this is probably fixed already in the internal builds, and we will have it in 2.5 so they won't backport this into 1.5.4 because it isn't worth it. So basically what I am saying is: Wait until 2.5, and complain again if it looks bad then. :)

+1 that would be a great addition. The weather system being as it is (needing a massive overhaul) I probably wouldn't call it very urgent, but still nice.

+1, would love to have recon picture systems.