outlawal2

I love the Hawk but I picked the L-39 because there are many places around the world where you can actually FLY one of these planes where the Hawk is strictly off-limits to civilians... I can't wait to have the L-39 in DCS so I can take a REAL flight in the real plane and enjoy the DCS module even more!

Yep, I don't blame them a bit... :cry:

Also depends on range and POV... Try moving and attacking from different angles.. Sometimes I have to try from different aspects to take some targets out...

True! But if the guys doing the coding say that this is NOT the holdup then I am going to take their word for it... They ought to know... Thanks Cobra as always for the frank and informative response! :thumbup:

What "Won't be" ? No Sabre in this patch or no Edge in the following patch?

LOL.. Yeah not having a C++ programmer on staff might put a massive crimp in one's ability to complete this module!

Man, I read some of these posts and continue to be amazed at the detail level that these DEVS are putting into these modules... Then I am blown away by the knowledge of the folks on this forum that can point out absolutely miniscule details about these planes... the level of detail is extraordinary in both cases!

Yeah I think we will eventually see a "Famine to Feast" situation in the near future. How far out that future might be I have no idea, but there are a LOT of items in progress right now and if ED could just get a tiny piece of luck to go their way things would turn around for the better! Just seems lately like they can't BUY a piece of good luck.. Here's hoping..

This is a very Helpful post please do not remove.. And once again I praise you for your patience! :thumbup:

:doh: Well CRAP. Sorry about that.. Looking back it was SKATEZILLA that had mentioned the 32 GIG RAM and a RAM disk. Sorry guys..

Well done my friend.. Well done! :thumbup:

Great news! So publish that puppy! :megalol:

GG you mentioned using 32 GIGS as a RAM disk... I am waiting for the PC standard itself to be updated and hopefully we can do away with the current architecture requiring separate memory and a hard disk / swap file etc... Hopefully soon they will just do away with that archaic system and simply run directly from RAM... So we just load our apps to a RAM disk and run from there with no swapping back and forth... ZERO Load times as there won't be any! And for those of you that are getting ready to tell me it isn't possible, it IS possible as many workstation class machines are setup that way already.. That is how Silicon Graphics machines work now... No Hard drive required for the OS and running programs because everything runs directly from the memory.. You only need a separate HD if you want to archive data... Only reason they break things out now between HD and memory is that fast memory is extremely expensive vs. HD space costs so the current architecture was adopted.. Moving forward as fast memory gets cheaper, changing the architecture now becomes a viable possibility.. (We are starting to see this change already in the form of SSD's which are simply memory chips designed to interface with existing HD communication standards.. ) Change the standards and use SSD technology in a plug-in board that connects directly to the main bus and remove the need for Hard drives... You will speed the system up hugely while simplifying at the same time. (and if you absolutely NEED a separate HD for whatever reason, USB 3.0 will do anything you might need..) Here's hoping!

Yes IIRC means "If I remember Correctly" Sorry I didn't get back to you on that... WORK got in the way!

The system that you are referring to is a modified Patriot SAM system. Israel bought (10 I believe) Patriot missile batteries and then have modified them for their own specific missile threats... As I understand it, they have made extensive software updates to the system to account for their specific threats and IIRC have linked them together.. So none of this would be beneficial to airplane use...

Well alrighty then! I stand corrected... I thought dual cockpit code was the holdup on multiple modules and was the cause of several of them being delayed... ?? HUEY I am looking at you! LOL

And I have no hostility toward any backer of any level that are legitimately backing a project... (Whether a dollar or $100 they are contributing to the project... My beef as stated in the original post is with the folks that are clearly trying to twist the situation around for their own gain and then try to make it look like they are taking the moral high ground while screwing ED over...) I will say that the vast majority of folks I believe have been reasonable and accepting of Ed's proposal, it is just that the unscrupulous ones seem to want to make the most noise and make things much worse than they really are... Sad

Until ED comes up with dual cockpit code there really can't be a Tomcat so i am betting that they will be real quiet until that code is provided... (I woudn't put time into an airframe until I was CERTAIN that I had all of the pieces required from ED.) Once dual cockpit code is successful I will bet we will start hearing more from some of the DEVS and different airframes...

Considering the flak and BS that ED has taken over the WW2 project, I kind of wish they would have just cancelled the whole project and let Ilya and RRG contend with their own mess of incompetence and then a year later after it was all over, ED could start their own WW2 project... Now ED gets to contend with someone else's delusional incompetence and they get drug through the mud over it... The biggest disappointment I have with the whole thing is that there are so many people that want to "Stick" a company or another person, and play the system to get something for nothing... Any human being that thinks it is reasonable to get a fully functional airframe for $1 is delusional.. (And while I too may throw my dollar in, in the hopes that maybe something will come of it, to push the whole thing and threaten legal action or other such BS is just that.. BS) There are a lot of companies that DO try to screw folks over and that is why there are laws in place to curb that behavior.. But the other side of that coin is a whole lot of unscrupulous people that try to "Work the system" to their own advantage and get something for nothing.. and then try to justify their deplorable behavior by saying they are standing up for the principle of the thing. Or some other blather.. Unfortunately, they are the ones that have no principles and muddy up the waters for individuals that DO have a legitimate bitch about a company or unscrupulous individual... Somedays I am ashamed to be a member of the human race.. :cry:

The pertinent statement being: "This information can serve as a basis for legal recourse if a creator doesn't fulfill their promises. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill." ED has done that... Folks really need to let this go...

Yep, human nature...

That has not been stated as of yet...

Well it isn't really a trick it is the truth, but it does make things a bit easier...

I happen to be the luckiest man I know as my wife has zero issues with my flight simming fetish! (Of course the amount of money we are SAVING by my no longer taking REAL flight lessons is huge so she has no issues with my simming..) I am a bit bummed about not flying the real thing anymore, but she sleeps better ... :)

ABSOLUTELY! A sensible post with a plan along with explanations as to why it makes sense.. Nice idea with sensible progression... Very nice! Count me in! :thumbup: