Eihort

Bah. Confused it with the SA-11.

I'm curious if the SA-6 has similar results.

What's the res on all the monitors?

I have the CH Pedals, and the CH Throttle quad for FSX. The CH Pedals have had both toe-brake pots go out of alignment and need to be replaced. The Throttle quad has had one pot completely die, and replacing it will be a downright pain in the ass requiring de-soldering of all the pots on the board to even see how hard they'll be to replace. I've had three gens of Saitek's HOTAS sticks. No problems on any of them.

I think the short version is you set up the displays side-by-side in the windows control panel. Add the pixels up for total width. Put DCS World in windowed mode, and define the main screen in the configs as the entire thing. So for three screens running 1920x1080 it would be 5760x1080. What I have is a 24" monitor running as main, and a much smaller 1028x960 running my MFDs with the Cougar Frames velcroed to it. The procedure for setting that up is somewhat similar.

I heard a story from a guy that worked on the Nevada range that he was driving down a road, looked in his rear view mirror and saw a BUFF in it....

Flashlight on a stick.

Except Radio and Light are in different parts of the spectrum. It's like saying "My sound system can produce awesome high low-frequecy sounds from this awesome sub-tweeter!". It's a "wait. wut?" thing. But the "pitch black night and everyone has flashlights" analogy is one of the best ever to explain what's going on in the RF spectrum in the battlespace.

Now if you want to know instantaneous speed, go ask Sir Newton.

I can't remember what show I saw it on, but a B-2 can drop a load of JDAMs over an airfield and pop every building. No nukes required.

Saying there is no "proof" in either direction is no reason to change things. Also I think by 'pincer' he actually means 'crank'.

Another choice would have been the Wings series from Third Wire. Pretty much a few clicks and you're flying combat missions blowing stuff up with a reasonably good model with easy controls.

Then I'll take wall to wall Mavs AND A HEAP OF PRAYERS. oh god... the missiles.....

Well it's going to be years period. I'm curious though to see with just the task of adding aircraft (DCS has to divide its attention quite a bit), how fast these 3rd parties can produce. I'm also curious how having a lot of information already from producing for FSX (in terms of avionics and how the aircraft functions) will translate.

This.... is..... AWESOME.

Wait. Wut?

But their shopping cart is broke. -_- EDIT: Apparently you have to create a user account first. EDIT AGAIN: Out of stock. ;_; Best I could find online: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d5/Nevada_TTR_Chart.jpg/1280px-Nevada_TTR_Chart.jpg

It's more a question if the DCS World Engine even has the functionality to allow that type of interconnection of units. Personally I'd be happy if there was a simple point and click screen of selecting and prioritizing targets for the individual AI of SAM sites to engage from a map created with sensor data. If the CP is knocked out, you can still use them, but you'd have to jump screens constantly between various systems to see where things are or to try and get a "big picture" and determine when to radiate and engage. Not really looking for the same level of detail as in the Sam Simulator in terms of fidelity in individual systems, but something that can be player controlled at least so in a MP environment things can get really interesting really fast. Of course, with only the Su-25t right now with anti-rad capability, it would probably be far more than players can handle. I'm looking at you 3rd Party projects. :D

If you're trying to make them think you're an airliner, it would be easier to fly the same routes and have radio call signs and xponders as if you were an airliner. There's also some EW functions you can do to make youreself appear bigger than you are too. I have to agree that using the same RCS value for all aspects is poor fidelity. Whether or not this is good for what is trying to be achieved here is a completely different matter. Here's a RCS diagram, and you can see that there are some serious peaks and valleys in it. Of course the RCS of this plane is massive compared to modern fighters. However, something like this might be more in order for the sim. I really need to get one of those textbooks on Radar and sit down with it. The stuff interests me to no end.

The Mig-21 will almost require it to be effective in a modern battlefield.

The inaccuracy of that statement astounds me. They're not doing this for free. My whole point is that ED goes and makes mistakes, and people like you tell us that we should be greatful for everything we've gotten and don't stop singing praises. My gratitude is the money I pay for these products, and if they make something I don't want, I simply don't buy it. This is why I don't own P-51, and I never will. Giving ED a free pass for these types of things does nothing but encourage the state of thinking that is rife in the industry. "Let's not worry about it now, we can always fix it later." There are countless business models if ran that way would fail miserably. It's a bad practice and I'm not going to endorse it with words, granted I've already done that technically with my wallet. But as has been said, we don't have much of a choice.

A simplified patching process of at least downloading incremental patches has been the standard for at least a decade. Doing it all online (some people were reporting that the updater was still DLing 5gigs of stuff) by clicking a button has also been a standard feature of Windows and other software as well. That should have been implemented from almost day 1 of DCS World. You don't get credit for screwing things up, and then "listening to your customers" and "impementing new features" when it's an industry standard across the board.

Here's a great example. You're comparing them to the most infamous and lengthy development periods (complete with tabloidesque drama). Also comparing them to Valve, which is notoriously tight lipped about their products under development, is also a bit misleading. Conversely, it would be a bit misleading of me to compare them to say, Star Citizen, which is leading the way in terms of openess about their project, and rightly so, considering how much people have paid for it. To make it more fair, the 3rd party developers for DCS World are incredibly more open about what's going on with their individual products because they've at least told us what aircraft they're working on and showing a lot more WIP information than ED. There's also lots of little things like having to completely reinstall the software when it updated (and now post updater, extremely long and large downloads), lack of multi-core support, esoteric settings (what does 'scene' mean?) and a direction that only seemed to finally materialize when DCS World was released, which still seems to confuse a lot of people how FC2, BS1, BS2, FC3 should be installed. Just because things are done a certain way, doesn't mean we just have to sit here and take it because we have no choice.

It looks like that drawing is sectionalized to show the differences between versions. Hence why that wing showing Mig-29K is divorced from the rest of the drawing.

What version exactly and with what radar?