ShuRugal

This. I've never really liked the excuse of "well, the one in DCS is serial number 5, the feature you wanted was only available to serial number 6 and on!" Why can't we have a late-production model that did have the fun toys?

Do you have any data on that point? This seems to be the major contention here. Based on what Falcon was saying, it would seem that the norm for Russian aircraft is a safety factor of 2.5. Considering that the Su-27 is less than 10% larger than the F-15, but has fully 25% more empty weight, it stands to reason that some of this extra weight would be in structural reinforcement, which itself stands in line with the general Russian principal of over-overengineering things. Is there any data to suggest that the safety factor for the Su-27 really is so low as 1.5?

I see threads every so often where people are asking about solving performance issues, finding out they need better hardware, and being limited by a tight budget. I have also noticed that a lot of people have difficulty identifying what hardware will be good enough to do the job, especially when budget constraints are added in. So I thought I would build a guide on how to select components for a gaming PC that will run DCS without breaking the bank. For the purposes of building any high-performance PC, your most valuable resource will be a website that provides performance benchmarks; I like Passmark, they have a wide selection of benchmarking tools, and virtually every piece of hardware ever made has a performance score. To start with, let's see what the minimum and recommended system requirements come out to in terms of Passmark scores. Minimum: CPU: Core I3 (~2000 Passmark pts) GPU: 2GB, DX11 support (~360 pts) RAM: 8GB The lowest scoring I3 is a mobile version clocking in at 1070 points. This is probably unrealistic for running DCS, so we'll go with the best-value I3 according the the value:money chart, which is the Core-I3-350M at 1900 points and $24 The cheapest DX-11 2GB video card I can find is the GT610, which scores 357 passmark points. This should check out, as my old HP laptop with a 9600 M GT (score 247) and a Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz (score 968) used to get a stable 20-30 FPS before DX11 (which is much more efficient than DX9 ever was) Building a computer off these specs, using the cheapest components on NewEgg, we get the following: WARNING: The following system, while dirt-cheap, will deliver a relatively poor DCS experience. You will be able to play, but you will have to use low graphics settings, and you will experience low framerates, especially in cities and on missions with heavy use of AI and scripting elements Total cost for Dirt Cheap Build: $265 + the cost of your preferred HDD Now that we have an idea of a bare-minimum configuration, let's see what the recommended specs run out at Recommended: CPU: Core I5 (or better) ~5000 Passmark Points GPU: GTX 780 / Radeon R9-290 8000~7000 points respectively. RAM: 16GB Let's look at a newegg price for this system: Total Cost for Recommended Specs: $625(Nvidia) or $595 (Radeon) + the cost of your preferred HDD But we can do better than this... Passmark has a chart of GPUs and CPUs by performance-per-dollar... http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html Using these charts, we can find high-performance cards that won't break the bank. My preference: Total price, $490 + the cost of your preferred HDD, well within the reach of a modest budget. Now, you will notice that I left out price point on a hard drive. This is a choice that will have minimal effect on in-game performance. Your choice of HDD primarily effects how much you can store on the computer, and how fast your programs will load up when you start them (or when you launch a mission). You can spend as little as tens or as much as hundreds on storage: it all depends on your budget and how much space you need. In summation: Q: what GPU do i need to DCS Reliably A: A modern video card with at least 2GB of RAM, DX11+ support, and a PassMark score of 5000-8000 (my GTX 780M gets me 45-60 FPS all day with a score of 4000) Q: What CPU do i need? A: Any CPU scoring at least 3000 on PassMark IMPORTANT TIPS: Do not be tempted to go cheap on Case, Power Supply, or Motherboard. Buy from a well-reviewed manufacturer, and always err on the side of More Power. I've seen too many builds (including my current roommate's) trashed by a power supply that wasn't up to the job, a motherboard that had shitty components get fried, or a case that did not provide good airflow. These problems will all cost you time and money, when you could spend a few extra bucks up front and not fuss with it again.

It is worth noting that if you have a non-FFB stick, using the "move stick, then click trimmer" method will result in the trimmed position moving twice as far as you wanted. If you have a non-ffb stick, the correct procedure is "press and hold trimmer, move stick, release trimmer".

take a look at http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html The 960 and the 950 both score in the 5k points range, so if the price difference is large, get the cheaper one. For an idea of good cards that won't break the budget, check out this chart: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html it gives you value:money rating. Right now it looks like the GTX950 is the best performing card under $150, and it has the third highest value:money rating, so it is probably your best bet.

This is actually the best place for weight on an airplane to be. Wings break off of overloaded airplanes not because the wings are too heavy, but because the fuselage is: The limiting factor is the strength of the wing root. Since the wings are cantilevered on almost all modern planes, all the force of lift that the wing generates must be communicated through the wing root to the body of the plane, and vice-versa all the weight of the plane must be supported by the wing root. Fuel evenly distributed throughout the plane places almost no strain on the wing, because the weight of the fuel is directly in-line with the lift supporting it. Likewise, the only strain external wing stores place on the wings comes in through the hardpoints. The weight of missiles on hardpoints and fuel in the wings will never separate the wings from the body, because their weight is not communicated between the wings and the body. This is why flying-wing designs never go fully out of the vogue: If the entire airframe is your lifting surface, you can spread the weight and the lift around evenly and avoid concentrating stress in one particular area.

booster coil is wired to the start switch. If the prop is being walked, presumably the start switch is not engaged.

I feel like the fact that the OP was doing an inverted pull somehow also factored into this. The pitch channel of the ACS doesn't know if the plane is inverted (unless someone thought to program that in) so all it is going to see is that as that first quarter-loop down progresses, the G-loading changes. Of course, the same theoretical problem could be in the damage model: Does the damage model allow for the fact that you get 1G for free when inverted?

With the Flanker, I honestly don't bother with flaps for takeoff. I rotate at 250, and wheels-up occurs around 300, regardless of flap setting. For landing, the flaps help you get slower before the onset of tip-stall, but i think all they really do on this bird is act as spoilers. The real work for airfoil-efficiency alteration is done by the slats, and those are automagic.

This would be amazing. I'd rather have a KA-52 than any species of AH-64...

wait, what?

I would guess a bit of each. IRL, the pilot would feel the stick hit his soft limiter and would need to deliberately pull through it. He would also feel the soft limit change if he were riding its edge. In the sim, you get no tactile indication that you have hit the stick limiter (unless you have FFB??), and the only way to pull through is to hold the wheel-brake binding. As a result, if you accidentally pull past your desired point, and that point is close to the limiter, you won't know you've done it. Then, when the plane slows down, the flight computer thinks its safe to pull some more pitch, so it increases the soft limit, now you get what appears to be an uncommanded pull. So far, we've only described 1 and 2. But with our brand-new stress-damage model for the plane, which may not yet be correctly dialed to provide accurate results in edge-of-the-envelope situations....

Thirded.

Anybody else notice that for the duration of the pull, control indicator shows the commanded input riding the edge of the soft limiter? The soft limiter actually move considerably rearward throughout the maneuver. It looks to me like the player was holding a stead stick position, around 60% deflection, and that the soft limit had kicked in around 55%, then ramped up to commanded input, and that this is what broke the plane. So, to the player, it would look like an uncommanded pull.

cool, add in misogyny, you're a real swell dude.

I think that will do exactly what I want, thanks!

the higher the AoA, the more surface area the wings present to the airflow, resulting in greater force from the airflow on the wings. 1000 kph at 0 AoA, the only vertical force experienced by the wings come from airfoil shape altering the pressure above the wing. At 90 degrees AoA, the wings are now subject to several hundred tons of drag force (until they break, that is)

Where do I find this function? no good, mate. My helicopter is not starting at an airport, and for the purposes of the mission design, a FARP is not practical (or believable). If I use the "start from ground" option, "Uncontrolled" is not an option. No good, the heli will either take off before the troop event is triggered, or will wait on the ground for too long after the troops board. troops are spawned and move to the helicopter in response to player actions, fixed timer is not an option. you could have read my response to that suggestion, which was "that option does not exist for start from ground" type waypoints. Instead you failed to contribute anything meaningful, while at the same time looking like a smugly superior prick.

Tried that, the heli takes flight as soon as troops enter boarding area, leaves 'em stranded.

This does not work for "take off from ground"; "Uncontrolled" option is not present.

So, I'm trying to have a helicopter sit on the ground with rotors stopped until an infantry group approaches and boards it. Late activation is not an option, because i need it to be visible so that that players may destroy it to prevent the group escaping. I've spent the last hour trying to find a way to do this. I cannot understand why there is no "wait" function for the AI in this thing. I have found information about setting the helicopter to start "uncontrolled", but this appears to be deprecated, because there is no such option in the mission editor.

Is this ever going to support other aircraft? Is the a possibility for opening up a dev tools set for our community to produce controls for other aircraft?

This, basically. There are some exceptions, however. The S-13 is powerful enough to kill tanks and APCs from 3-4 km with practice, and I have successfully used it to kill Strela and Igla MANPADS at 5-6 km. In the wild-weasle role, S-13's give you an excellent rate of success for your initial strike: I like to use them to suppress a known AAA/SAM position at the start of an engagement (before the AI is 'alerted' to you). Since the AI becomes alerted the moment you fire, using rockets on your first pass lets you break contact sooner than using a Vikhr does. S-8 KOM are, as mentioned, worthless. OFP-2 are useful for killing platoons of infantry (use medium burst setting, 2-3km range, 200-300m AGL) when you are providing CAS against an enemy lacking any significant AAA threats. The best use for rockets on the KA-50, though, is smoke markers. Carry a pair of S-8 TSM pods with you when flying online, and you can let your buddies know where your leftover targets are once your vikhrs run out. Launch from 6-8km and then talk your supporting element onto the target from wherever they land.

sounds like someone failed to spot an insider threat.

IDC if BST makes it, I'm done buying modules from them.