Aginor

There are some icing implementations already, that's right! - pitot icing is implemented for most planes (no visual effect though) - Mi-8 has de-icers, don't know to what extent it works - IIRC Leatherneck's MiG-21bis had some kind of canopy icing visual effect at some point, or it was planned EDIT: Expanding on this a bit: I hope for de-icers for the slats on the F/A-18C for example, including a visual effect. I hope I am not mistaken but I thought i read about such a thing existing.

I would like both. I prefer real ones, but I can see the advantages of fictional maps as well. I hope we will get a public map SDK some day, so we can have all kinds of maps and people can decide for themselves. :)

Why, is there a bar in the way?? :P :D :D

The whole block really: plus: what kind of icing could exist? - clouds - ground - freezing rain - others Icing is a big topic of course, and some stuff is hard to do.

Oh man, don't get me started with ATC. I really hope they surprise us with something AWESOME in 2.5 As for the effects (graphics and gameplay): There is SO much potential in this engine, even though some of it takes quite long to develop. I even think DCSW could become the first sim with proper icing (see question #10 in the first post). And that's very exciting!

Yeah, there are a few I could think of, but not really many. In any case the people who expect that suddenly there could be 20 parallel DCSW threads running and they can use the full potential of their i7 CPU are most likely mistaken.

I think people have in mind that CPUs try to spread threads to different cores if possible. So if DCSW would create more threads it would use more cores (if more cores are available). EDIT: But I'd like to go back to my question #6 because that one is related to wind/snow removal: I wonder how ED could do that. I imagine it to be a pain in the behind for a third party to go back to their module and change something to have the rain/snow effect implemented. Perhaps such things are covered by the third party license agreement (pure speculation, since those are not public AFAIK), I guess there are paragraphs that basically say "the 3rd party has to implement some stuff from time to time after release to make sure the module stays compatible to DCSW". But being a software dev myself I wonder about technical stuff of course. :) So maybe a modeler will be provided with a different material to use for the windows that are supposed to be subject to the rain effect, instead of the normal glass, and the renderer just applies the rain/snow shader to those. And then there is an API function that can be used to clear the glass with one of a few pre-baked removal animations. So when implementing the wipers or other removal tools the 3rd party developer 'just' has to create the wiper animation and call the removal function for that (part of the) window. Something like that.

Hey guys! I'd like to suggest two changes to the forum rules: about the quoted point: (belonging to section 1.14 It’s forbidden to create threads/topics containing in their title/body:) What has a link to a forums section to do with a flame? Is that a mistranslation from the russian forum rules, or maybe a copy and paste error from the point below it (offtopic)? So yeah, we shouldn't flame. That's clear to most people I guess, it is just that the wording sounds really confusing to me. The second part is that I'd like to suggest writing down a rule that is enforced anyway, to avoid confusion, to avoid deleted posts, and to have a point to link people to: - It is not allowed to compare DCSW technology, visual style or content to other computer games and/or simulations regardless of genre. That's it. :)

I also am not quite sure about that. Would love to hear some real pilots' view on that. There are rain/snow removal devices on a lot of planes, even fast ones. Example: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-rain.htm Also keep in mind DCSW also supports slow planes and helicopters. The need for wind shield wipers on helis clearly shows that rain or snow can be an issue. But yes, I also expect for jets that the effect would be mostly visible when on the ground and/or at low speeds, at least at forward facing windows or bubble canopies. On the sides the rain/snow will probably be visible at higher speeds as well.

That's a bit exaggerated. There are ways to do that a bit more efficiently. The problem with the management overhead is still there though. Oh, and just for the record since I just noticed my post got deleted: Links to videos of other games for showing examples for effects are also forbidden it seems, not only if the linked games are flight sims. I will suggest putting that into the forum rules to avoid confusion. If anybody wonders what I was talking about: There is a rather new and well-known rally game that has a great rain effect, which I think is a good example because it isn't dynamic, but it _looks_ dynamic. Some of those techniques can be computed solely on the graphics card, and save the precious CPU performance.

Hi! Always nice too see a new member on the forums! :)

Hi there! :)

Oh No! RIP Love his mods.

It was the German Army. :) In fact you can use that gun against airborne targets and it can be deadly, but a simple soldier without a proper AA gunnery training is better off playing dead. The main point is that your first shots must hit it well, or it will retaliate with something much more deadly. Same as against tanks. A modern tank just needs a few seconds to see where you are firing from, turn its turret, and shove a fragmentation round up your behind. So it isn't worth shooting at it as an infanterist if you aren't confident you will disable it quickly. You keep your head down and call in heavier stuff. As for the noise: I actually noticed that as well. It is loud (every heli is, since it flies by beating the air into submission :D ), but compared to a Blackhawk it really isn't THAT loud.

Yeah, it sounds so easy. And actually: Graphics cards do that. We are talking about CPU cores though, aren't we? All the stuff you mentioned is not done in the CPU. Shagrat's example is very simplified, but it shows that distributing operations over several cores can - quite often - make them take longer instead of gaining speed. Because the organization also takes time. EDIT: Even more severe are problems that have parts that rely on part reults to do the rest. Imagine baking a cake. You won't gain that much speed by letting another pastry chef do the icing/decoration on the baked cake, because he needs to wait for the cake to come out of the oven. He can't do that in a parallel operation. In complex simulations there are a lot of such problems that you just cannot distribute. EDIT2: ...also I think we are getting off topic. We are talking about two things: #1 will rain effect impact performance? #2 could multi-core use solve that? The answer for #1 is: probably. But if it mainly runs on the GPU we may be fine. The answer for #2 is: pretty sure it can't.

Thanks for the pictures! That thing is a monster. Until a few years ago, from time to time some US army Apaches flew around near where I live, and even though they were just flying around they somehow looked dangerous. They are ugly, loud, and aggressive. You immediately know that a war machine is flying over your head. I wouldn't mess with them, or any other attack helicopter. Fun story that happened during my military service (infantry): Instructor (showing us the MG3 machine gun for the first time): "Ok, so this is the MG3. This is the barrell, the sight, the bipod (explaining some more parts, explaining their use etc.)" Soldier (pointing at the AA-gunsight) "What is that?" Instructor: "That's the AA-gunsight." (opening it, showing it) "And now we'll close it again, and I'll tell you why: We. don't. shoot at. planes! And we certainly DON'T SHOOT AT ATTACK HELICOPTERS! It is unlikely you'll hit and damage it, but you will tell it where you are. And then it'll turn around its 30mm gatling cannon and make mincemeat out of you." Seeing such helis in action (or even just flying by) I can only agree. Until you know exactly what you are doing, don't mess with them.

As I noticed this behaviour in a few recent screenshots I'd like to bring this thread up again to ask whether that bug is reported to the devs, and whether it is planned to be changed in the next versions if possible. :)

I read today that some of the benchmark guys reportedly used a wrong driver, and there was already an improved one. Still the power issue, but the cards are a bit faster. Still not near the 1070 (yet?) though.

The higher CPU clock frequency will net necessarily improve CPU performance that much. It is.... complicated. I can't really explain it well, here are two links that try to: https://www.comsol.com/blogs/havent-cpu-clock-speeds-increased-last-years/ https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-CPU-clock-speeds-increased-in-the-last-5-years Bottom line (kind of): They do get faster, but that is not linear with clock speed.

By the way, that would also affect contrail altitude for example. Right now it is static in DCSW I think.

Yeah, I really expect all, or almost all of them to be usable in CA.

Loved the moment at 2:20 when the guy in the blue car drove by, with shells flying all around him and explosions behind him, not caring at all. Like a boss. :D EDIT: And then he came back at 4:40 driving a blue truck, not giving a sh** either! :D Also: great flying, sir!

Yes, of course. You can change the amount of fuel in the mission editor (click on the plane, then on the right side in the armament menu), and also in the rearming/refueling menu when the aircraft is off and you are on the ground on a friendly airfield. (except I misunderstood the question)

No clue, that's the first time I read that as well. And then of course there are different possible implementations. Here some examples, roughly sorted by complexity ascending - global humidity value dependent on the weather setting - global, altitude-dependent value (based on some lookup table) - local, altitude-independent humidity value (dynamic weather) - local, altitude-independent humidity value, with clouds as separation (below, in, and above clouds different values) - the full program (altitude, temperature, pressure, weather, clouds are all factors, and their exact values are computed every second or faster, their effect on performance is a function determined in the AFM of each plane)

According to ED that's not the case. Some complex operations just can't be split up, the performance win would be marginal, and the changes to implement that splitting would even cost performance, which makes that option less effective as it sounds.