Night

Do you know how many times prominent generals have said total war would never happen again? It was a common belief in the USSR in the 1930's that a modern war would be fully mechanized, and would be over in a matter of weeks. We in the US have been spoiled by fighting technologically easy opponents - Iraq and such - but if we were ever to face off against China, a few thousand aircraft would come in handy.

Are you guys talking about the upcoming Mi-8 beta?

Another reason the SR 71 was decommissioned was because an aircraft going mach 3 is every bit as vulnerable to a SAM as an airplane going 200 knots. Second, your Aurora simply couldn't go mach 3 at altitudes lower than clouds, it just wouldn't work. So it still has no advantage over satellites. Sorry, that's just not true. An aircraft flying at 70,000ft just doesn't have any advantage over optics in a satellite. I didn't say you could READ the newspaper from a satellite photo. But it is getting good enough that you can see pictures and such. It is good enough that there just isn't any benefit to using an aurora. If the air force built 30-40 of them, they could cover the globe and would never need to be maneuvered. And if they made them stealthy, that would be a FAR superior solution than an aurora. The U2 is vastly different than an Aurora. I am not saying satellites are better than the U2. I am saying that they would be far more effective than the mythical "Aurora" could ever be. I just still don't see any advantage that a high-flying high-speed Aurora program would have over a fleet of 30-40 stealth satellites. The only advantages I can see would be for satellites, not the aurora.

In Russian, Mirror = Зеркало The "З" is equivalent to a Z in English in this case, so pronounced Zerkalo. I would be very interested in seeing how to enable the center mirror as well

As much as I drool at the prospect of a 4K display driven by triple SLI titans, it might be just a TINY bit out of my budget :D I'm just curious if it would technically even work, if DCS could even support such a resolution.

For DCS, I have to use Windows, so I recently built a gaming rig solely for DCS (in signature below) and use Windows 8 64bit on it. Pretty awesome having the dedicated computer solely for DCS and my macs for everything else.

I am a display-phile and I have been wanting to get an extremely high resolution 4K display for a while now. 4K is basically the same resolution as four normal 1080p displays in a square (two above, two below). Very recently companies have started coming out with 4K displays that will not bankrupt you, such as the $650 Seiko 4K display. Now that they are becoming more affordable, I have been wondering if DCS would even run in 4K? I would appreciate any responses from anyone who has actually used DCS A-10C in 4K, or people with similar setups like using four displays.

By "network play" does he mean online multiplayer? Or just LAN parties and such.

I launched DCS (now) two days ago and got a very tiny update. Might also be something they changed on the <51> server. It lasted for a long time and never crashed with 20+ people, that never happens, they really should do the same map today and see if that's it.

Satellites and a possible Aurora would BOTH have to deal with clouds. Satellites can use infrared and radar as you said, but RADAR would have to be ruled out if you intend to keep it stealthy. The aurora would have to deal with the same issues, thus it still has no benefit and I highly doubt the US government would choose it.

I think this latest patch yesterday much have fixed something, today on the <51> server I played for well over an hour with 20+ people. Might be just coincidence that it lasted that long without crashing but I don't think so

And the SR71 was taken out of service because satellite imagery has improved so dramatically and are no longer bound to a single preset trajectory. Satellites have gotten very advanced, and it is no longer a huge deal or costly expense to change the orbit of a satellite that could have been BUILT to be maneuverable. Obviously, it's you who needs to read up on modern satellite technology. Stealth DOES matter in space. That is how the US and Russia can tell where each other's satellites are, even the ones with boosters who can change their trajectory easily. A stealth satellite, however, would change the game, and would allow the US to have high-fidelity images of any point on the globe within an hour, especially if they have several stealth satellites in space. First, satellites can maneuver just fine nowadays. They are not limited to tiny orbital corrections anymore, they can significantly change their flight trajectory. The Aurora would be useless FIRST because if there was a very important and quickly changing event that didn't already have a possible US stealth satellite flying overhead, then the US could use rocket boosters to change the orbit VERY quickly. Satellites travel much faster than any Aurora ever could. Second, the US could build 30 or 40 of these stealth satellites to provide constant, 24/7 coverage of the entire globe without Russia or China being able to predict their orbit or ToT (Time over Target).

And I am sure any country that wants to can just build their own Aurora's! What point exactly are you trying to make here? First, the Aurora would (by definition) not be able to observe as much area of the earth as a satellite because it simply would have a much lower altitude. Second, satellite technology has gotten *VERY* good, good enough to see a clear picture of whatever newspaper someone happens to be reading. There is simply no technological advantage to an Aurora aircraft that a satellite couldn't also have. And they couldn't do the same thing for an Aurora? Let me guess, you think not because you believe the Aurora would have RCS reducing stealth technology. My response would be, why couldn't a satellite have stealth technology as well? It would work just as well at keeping the satellite hidden, and would have the added bonus of being up in the air 24/7. ....what? Flying an Aurora over someone's country would likely create just as much of a firestorm. Again, a stealth satellite would be FAR superior in every category. It could be just as stealthy. It could be up in the air 24/7, without having to land and refuel. It flies WAY faster than the aurora ever could. And best of all, it would be far more difficult to shoot down a stealthy satellite than any potential Aurora. Yes I am sure that you have even flown it yourself, with Chuck Norris and Mr. T as your navigator and bombardier. I don't doubt that the US military could keep it secret from the public. But I DO doubt that "Aurora" would actually be an aircraft. It would be FAR more likely to simply be a stealthy satellite.

Yeah, it is horrendous. I have never seen any Flaming Cliffs/DCS version this incredibly unstable. The server will crash and kick everyone off just if you sneeze the wrong way. I really, REALLY wish ED would make multiplayer sessions more stable before they come out with a new module. Imagine how many new players they are losing because of how ridiculously crash-tastic DCS is. As it stands, a server with 20 people is unlikely to last even 30 minutes. It's bad, I don't think I've ever seen such an unstable game. I can't even BEGIN to tell you how infuriating it is when a server crashes seconds before a missile I've shot at someone hits them. This tends to be the point where the server crashes, I have no idea why...I am tired of cursing ED's name at the end of every multiplayer session (when the server crashes). What SHOULD be the funnest and most exciting multiplayer games, the ones with 20+ people, end up being the most frustrating and shortest lived. Come on ED, fix it! I would PAY for an update if it would just fix the damn multiplayer.

The Aurora would be useless, all of it's roles could be filled much cheaper through satellites and B2 bombers.

It would be better to have an E-3 or A-50 AWACS rather than a transport. Can you imagine going online to a multiplayer server in your C-17??? :D You'd get shot down in about 2 and a half seconds. At least an AWACS would be theoretically useful. Who knows, maybe a C-5 galaxy could be useful, delivering AMRAAM's and R-27's to airbases.

Not every aircraft that isn't a $100+ million dollar stealth aircraft would be shot down in a modern conflict. The A-10C shouldn't be retired because it's not stealthy or new. There is a place for stealthy aircraft like the F-35, which is taking out long and medium range SAM sites in target area and F-22's to take out enemy aircraft. These new fifth generation fighters should work on making the area clear for less expensive and more numerous 4th generation fighter-bombers. But once the US has gained air superiority and there are large amounts of targets that need to be taken out, the number of F-35's will just not cut it. It would be immensely useful to still use aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 in environments where air superiority has been gained. Non-stealthy aircraft could be useful in the beginning operations as well, lobbing JASSM's and JSOW's, etc. from a hundred miles away. That's just not true. A mix of both would be ideal, a smaller number of stealthy F-35's and F-22's, and a larger number of F-16's and F-15's. Can you imagine how horrible it would have been if the US Navy, Air Force, and Marines ditched all earlier aircraft in favor of the F-4 phantom before the Vietnam war?

Now if ED would only make multiplayer more stable I think we'd all be pleased :)

I buy DCS modules to fly around blowing stuff up. I can't imagine anything more boring than delivering mail from the front :D

You are missing one very important factor: inflation. $2k in 1962 dollars is around $16k in today's dollars. Even if it does cost more than it used to, it is still a hell of a lot cheaper and you can buy more of them. Quality is NOT always better than quantity, especially when you start looking at a potential conflict with a large country like China or Iran. I think the US should buy 1000 F-35's and 2000 F-16V's + F-15 Stealth Eagles.

It is called iControl, works great. Let's you control CDU, both MFCD's, and other important switches in the A-10c

I would have to disagree with that. While I do not doubt that Sukhoi has the wits enough to develop a fighter that could post a danger to the F-22, I highly doubt that the Russian Air Force could actually afford it. We just don't possess enough information on what a serial-production T-50 will look like to make ANY assumptions regarding it's performance against an already combat-ready F-22. The T-50 cost currently is about $50,000,000 USD. The F-22's current cost is around $150,000,000 USD. I think Sukhoi has to be cutting corners if they expect to actually make a 5th generation fighter for 50 million dollars.

In real life, your eyes would not be forced to view the world and fly a combat mission through a 1920x1080 resolution. Up to a point, using the zoom feature is more realistic than not using it.

Frostie is correct here. Try it some time. Find a target with IRST flying at a level altitude, but don't lock him up. It doesn't matter if you point your nose up or down, the only thing that will change his position on the HUD will be if you gain or lose altitude. That means he's correct it has to be gyro stabilized.

Frostie and Teknetinium, do you guys use IRST in the FC3 Su-27? I have found it to be very unreliable and inconsistent. But I am not sure if it is accurately modeled in game or not, if the real-life Su-27 IRST is really that poor. You would think that as long as you were not looking at someone who was heading directly head-on, you would be able to see them on IRST, because surely even if they are not using afterburners, the contrast of their exhaust against the cold sky at 7,000M would be apparent. But it isn't in FC3. I similarly like to use the R-27ET, but I find it is only effective if I am firing from a position outside of the enemy pilot's field of view.