Eihort

I can think of some rather entertaining scenarios inolving civilian aircraft in a military setting.

Been a long time since we've had a decent Naval warfare "RTS" of the Harpoon variety. Hopefully it'll eventually be like DCS with CA but progress backwards. Starting with a commander type mode and then fleshing out individual platforms in specific sims or survey sim like Dangerous Waters.

As stated. -have multi monitor set up -Join MP server -See plane selection list with player names -The second you scroll, the player names all blank out. You have to click blindly to find an empty one and join in to see the player list to check the team balance. -If you go single monitor, no problem. I know this issue has been around quite a while. Any fix on the horizon? I think this might disappear if you switch between full-screen and windowed, since Multi-mon requires windowed mode. Just -really- annoying.

I can't remember if it was IRIS or not, but there was one company making a DCS module that flat out stated they would NEVER support TacPac.

RIP.

You can still have adventures!

The problem is when the AMRAAM goes pitbull, the seeker in the missile will lock onto the biggest thing it sees. I've been killed Blue on Blue in multiplayer by this very phenomenon. If you happen to be there, it'll lock on to you instead. The only way around it in a crowded sky is to use an AIM-7.

Ah. Thanks. Had to hijack and make my own shortcut. Finally updated.

What's the command line for the shortcut? For some reason, it's not in my start menu.

What's the command line for the shortcut? For some reason, it's not in my start menu.

Similar issue here. The autoupdater ran, told me the servers were busy. Now when I run it, the autoupdater doesn't even try and update, just starts the game. Running updater to force it doesn't work either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecPeSmF_ikc Nukes would be fun just for adding a little real world authenticity, despite there apparent lack of utility in the game.

Wouldn't go so far as to call it bullshit, but definately propaganda when they completely avoid saying a test pilot died when one of them broke up during a test. Still, though, a very interesting film. Thanks for sharing!

I just don't understand the necessity of a plausible plot to the point that someone won't have anything to do with the map.

I cannot understand the complaints about Nevada being 'outlandish' or whatever as a map. It's like people seem to believe there is this magical fairy that's going to come out of the sky and smite them if they build a mission that doesn't have a 'plausible' back story. Some of the missions mentioned by detractors and that I've played on other servers are pretty outlandish IMO. The truth is, it doesn't matter. If you're at angels 22 with your RWR beeping at you and your primary concern is why you're there in the first place, I'm sorry, but you're doing it wrong. Plop down some red and plop down some blue, and have at it. You don't *need* a reason. The only thing that has to make sense is the disposition of forces and how they're deployed. Not where in the world they're deployed. It's a new map with new terrain to fly around in. It's going to require a different approach to things than the original map. The NTTR is about as wide as the distance from Kutasi to Sochi. It's tiny by most standards that we're used to. The mental load is going to be higher as you'll have less time to react and think about things. The BVR game is going to be very different. Look at it in 3D on Google Earth. It's ridge city out there. Great for avoiding SAMs, but the second you clear the ridge, you're a target for everything in the next valley. These aren't the gorges of the Caucasus' where your exposure is measured in seconds between ridges. Ka-50s are going to have a field day and live or die by pop-up attack. There's a lot more than just Red Flag at Nellis. I was born and raised in Vegas and there's always aircraft taking off and flying north to go play.

Suggested reading: http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Simulation-Scattering-Recognition-Detection/dp/1580531725/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1373862973&sr=8-7&keywords=Radar+Simulation http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Computer-Simulation-Engineering-Communications/dp/1580532802/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1373862973&sr=8-8&keywords=Radar+Simulation http://www.amazon.com/Radar-System-Analysis-Design-Simulation/dp/159693347X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373862973&sr=8-1&keywords=Radar+Simulation http://www.amazon.com/System-Performance-Modeling-Second-Edition/dp/1580538169/ref=sip_rech_dp_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1373862973&sr=8-7 Master those, and you'll have a job for life.

Isn't this going to be added when they finally get around to implementing multi-core too? /flee!

You'd have to do some major RF model reworking I think to make it anything close to an accurate representation. Could be wrong.

By this logic, any module won't be accurate enough if the devs of it never flew one.

Meh. Read the thread on the other board, and a lot of that I find humorous. They don't even know how little they know about some of the things they think they do.

But.... that's.... not....a 737 on the box....

That's the name of the game in EVE. If you can't handle it, take the butthurt somewhere else.... Meanwhile this little industrialist will be in the corner counting his piles of money.....

I've played the hell out of Dangerous Waters, and there's a very respectable realisim mod out for it. Only problem with it, is that it breaks the built in campaign by altering detection ranges, making some "Be undetected" mandatory mission objectives impossible. Still a very good game and about as close to DCS level you can get for modern naval warfare.

Wheeeee!

Well everytime the F-35 wins, they'll just say it's over-modeled. It'll be IL-2's P-51 and Spitfire.