mjeh

Considering there's no carrier ops in the Nevada desert (unless there are carriers on Lake Tahoe now? :D ) and DCS F-18 is on the way, I would hope Caucasus gets a facelift. Since we have no way of knowing what EDGE quality actually means at this point, nor how much work is involved in making a map of such quality (consider the sheer size of the caucasus theatre), it really is hard to say anything meaningful on the subject. A complete remake sounds unlikely to me due to the amount of work needed, but if they manage to put in a higher resolution terrain mesh (prettier mountains and hills), some nice new terrain textures, new forest model and maybe even fix the mismatch between road- and elevation mesh (notice how you sometimes drive under the road?), then that alone would do wonders.

:thumbup: I have a creeping suspicion that a lot of people would find the reason for their sub-par performances from good rigs if they took a look in their system tray

Oh absolutely, and smoke in particular has always been a show stopper. But still, there is always room for improvement. And these improvements are surely coming, 1.2.3 made MLRS useable for me again (yay) for instance, even if it still slows my system considerably. But until such a time as the spectacular cluster munitions effects can be shown without too much FPS drop on an average DCS-user rig, I can't help but think that maybe the effects should be a little less spectacular and a little more FPS-friendly. EDIT: With the option of full on spectacularity for those that have the rig to pull it off, of course :v:

That said, the OP has a point when it comes to cluster munitions :)

From my experience with IL-2 (I do own pretty much everything they've released and have sunk lord knows how many hours into them) their P-51 and FW-190 weren't as bad as some people seem to make them out to be, but their P-51 still falls miles short of any comparison with the DCS P-51. What you mean by "wrong server/ module landscape" isn't very clear, but the whole "wrong universe p-51 doesn't fit in" is getting old because 1. it's been stated that there will be more WW2 aircraft coming and 2. it's been stated that there will be WW2 scenarios coming (although nothing is said as to whether said scenarios will be 3rd party). On one hand you complain that the P-51 isn't "fun" and "useful" (both of which are nothing but your personal opinions, I must remind you) and doesn't fit in, and on the other hand you complain that they're releasing an opponent that will make it both "fun" and "useful". Which is it? So you are not against including WW2 or other eras. You just don't think they should ever be given priority, their presence confuse and irritate you and WW2 dogfight servers will be "lame" and "boring"? Come on guy, at least stand up for your opinions and don't contradict yourself. If you want your point of view to be respected, you can start by respecting those you are trying to sell it to. Currently you are not only directly contradicting yourself on several (if not most) points, you are also trying to disguise your own personal opinion as "DCS-healthy" and "DCS-suitable" (look at Silver_Dragon's quote to see the real focus of DCS as opposed to what you make it out to be) business strategies that ED must follow if they want financial success. I'm sorry if I come across as harsh in this post, but in my eyes all you are doing is spreading negativity because you are unhappy that your personal favourite plane maybe isn't (because you don't even know, do you) the next one in the pipeline.

mission building is quite like programming in that you build it in an hour and spend the next 3 days trying to get it to work :)

For the purpose of the Mission Editor alone it would be useful to think of it in those terms, but I would discourage it as it carries implications that are false in many other situations. AND and OR (conjunction and disjunction, respectively) are connectives used to form compositional propositions (or statements if you will) from simpler propositions. Parenthesis can be put around an OR-statement just as easily as around an AND-statement, and have the potential to completely change the meaning of the composite statement depending on their placement. '(P and Q) or R' is not equivalent to 'P and (Q or R)' as was already explained by St3v3f, because the first statement means that "either 'P and Q' must be true, or 'R' must be true" whereas the second means "'P' must be true and either 'Q or R' must be true" (You'll have to forgive me if I mix up terminology, as english is not my first language. If I made an error, hopefully someone in the know will be kind enough to point it out) Yes, this is correct. The AND is implicit from the grouping of statements.

It seems most land-based units have a max detection range (or had, last I checked) of 5'000 meters, according to druid there are also factors like atmospheric and lighting condition (weather, time of day). You can see for yourself in the various .lua files. Also, you can give a JTAC vision of the target regardless of outside factors (even line of sight) by ticking the visible box under advanced waypoints. Admittedly, I haven't fiddled around with it since 1.2.3 and I have no experience with AFACs. It is, however, easy enough to see if a vehicle can spot another (enemy) vehicle. Just start the mission with fog of war on and check F-10 map

I suppose one could dedicate a processor core for physics handling?

Good idea, that would also mean you could save them into templates and use for later missions as well

that sounds eerily familiar. (well apart from the cigarettes, I quit those 6 years ago :) )

Good point

Oh don't get me wrong, thoroughly looking forward to it! :) Was just wondering how it compares to other fighters in terms of maneuverability.

Uninstall the current installation, reinstall with new build. But why not just run the autoupdater?

+1

Awesome, thanks for your answer!

Hi! Maybe I am lazy for asking and should read up and find out for myself, but hopefully one of the lua gurus will be able to answer a couple of questions for me; Can you with lua write your own trigger events through the mission editor? Can you through lua obtain object reference/ pointer to triggering object of a trigger's event? (e.g. 'on take control' -> get triggering unit) If at all possible to get object references, can you store them in variables? How would you create/ access these through the mission editor trigger system? (Just on theoretical level, not asking for step by step spoonfeeding or anything :) )

E model turns better than C, that is quite surprising. Thanks for posting this!

The interviewer didn't seem to know much about DCS at all. But I suppose that's a good thing in the context, as he was asking questions that most FSX guys would probably be wondering about. As for heavy jets and civilian aircraft in general, I believe two conditions must be satisified: 1. New maps, and crucially bigger maps in terms of geographical span if the aim is to attract long haulers. Vaziani -> Anapa is little more than a warm up run for a commercial air liner :) 2. A dev team brave enough to be pioneers, as in be the first one to release a civilian aircraft made for the DCS environment (I would imagine there's quite a lot of work going into those as well, even without the weapons systems :) )

How does the bug rate in maneuverability (as related to combat maneuvering, dogfighting) compared to other contemporary fighters? I'm finding it hard to find credible sources

Well it's not much but it describes how you can get started with testing the different vehicles and setting up some targets to shoot at etc, and as I gathered that's what you were looking for? Anyhow, as I said, I think to really tap into the potential of CA the mission editor is the way to go. Lets you set up the scenarios you want for yourself and your mates, and not have to rely on other people making the missions for you :)

oh, good to hear :) cold looks best by far imo

that said, the current glare is a bit hyperactive imo

no, Wags said F-15, F-18 and Su-27 will be study level (ka-50 and a-10c are study level sims, for comparison) judging from the transcription (I didn't manage to listen to the latest podcast before it was taken down) it means that ED will continue to produce aircraft of lower fidelity (just not as part of the FC series, since FC3 is stated to be the last installment due to ubisoft being lovely chaps) in addition to study sim aircraft, and this can only be a good thing since it means DCS will be available to a much wider market

I don't think you need to install flaming cliffs, just lomac? lomac -> dcsw -> fc3 should do the trick