ericinexile

Works fine in Vista 64. Thanks!

It does? I can't find that feature. I use TSdisp for IL2 but that doesn't work for DirectX games. Smokin' Hole

Dear Leutinant 141st_Kanuni, The US taxpayers wish to thank you for spamming a million dollars worth of hardware over the Georgian countryside. As a government official who is in bed with the mitary-indusrial establishment I want to add, "Keep up the good work!" Donald Rumsfeld, SecDef

Lately I've been hopping back in forth between IL2 on Hyperlobby and DCS. Since I have the house to myself for a few weeks I've been using Teamspeak with IL2 and it has been an incredible boost in realism and excitement. I don't want to overstate it but it has changed an already great sim for me because it made cooperation possible. It felt so real hearing bombers cry for help and wingys call bandits that I've been damn near shaking when back on deck. I had tried TS with LOMAC a few times but participation was low and the nature of the game didn't really make TS worth the time for me. DCS, as a co-op (at least for now) sim, would be a lot more fun with TS. This thread, like the Campaign Generator thread, is completely self-serving--I want to have more fun in Multi-Player. The campaign generator may never happen. But Teamspeak and Ventrilo are here now and either makes MP worth showing up. My two cents. Smokin' Hole

Only because there is quite a lot of playability with the staged campaign with single player--I personally don't like it but it works. On the other hand, multi player is very dull in DCS and a campaign generator would greatly improve it--but it would improve SP as well. Everybody's Happy! :thumbup: Smokin' Hole

I think developers must concentrate on what they feel will be the core customer. Perhaps ED have done this by concentrating on single-player. To an even greater extent than LOMAC, Multiplayer is an afterthought in DCS. You can already see the difference by observing the 50-100 FC players on Hyperlobby and the dozen (on a good day) on DCS MP (granted, smaller audience, but you'd expect more participation by now). Smokin' Hole

Yep. I've been flying sims since '84 and the flanker series since the early '90's. In the meantime I've acquired 12000 + hours as a professional pilot. Nothing comes close the what ED have produced including X-plane, which is often lauded, but which I find WAY off for swept-wing aircraft and helos. The Su25 in FC is the ultimate in fixed-wing modeling. Smokin' Hole

Way off topic... Well I'll go half on topic to say "great mission!" Now... I always alt-tab out of MP to get all cores on board with Affinity. This is the only mission that locks me out (I can't alt-tab back in). Eventually the gave is unresponsive and I have to kill it. Nobody's fault and not a problem but I just find it funny that this happens only with this mission. Thanks for hosting! Smokin' Hole

That's the more complicated part of the equation. In F4:AF/RV, you quickly learn to ignore the tasks asigned by the campaign engine and do what you think is best for your enjoyment and the war by changing waypoints, tasks, and loadouts. In DCS, a player has to make waypoint changes through the ABRIS which is tedious, but before you even get to that point you need to know where your objective(s) is(are). How do you do that without an editor?

^^^^ True. But I'm not asking for the moon (speaking selfishly but I can only speak for myself). I just want to keep coming back to a changing battlefield where the FLOT line(s) move, units move, get destroyed/resupplyed, attrition is applied, etc. Since war simulators have been doing this on home PCs since the early eighties, I can't imagine its that complicated. Let's call it a Turn Based Dynamic Campaign System. The server starts the mission and runs it for two hours or until major triggers of the owner's choosing occur. The server then passes along all the info to the Campaign Generator which then writes a new MP mission for the Server to reboot with. We, the players, then come back to find a battlefield that evolved based on our individual efforts and those of the AI forces. I now know its possible. I know it would dramatically enhance the enjoyment of MultiPlayer. I just haven't a clue how to do it. But I feel strongly enough that I would make a small PayPal contribution the people who offer something promising in beta. (Just to let my imagination run further: The Campaign Generator could keep most of the "War" (that which isn't in our bubble) out of the mission to keep frame-rates up. However the entire war could be viewable on the server's website, updated at each server reset.) Smokin' Hole

Yes I do. You may have misunderstood my post in that I was sharing your experience. The part that you quoted was what I imagine should happen in the real world but does not happen in the game. I think that when it comes to flight controls, certain compromises must be made to realism in order to allow for our cheap, plastic input devices. While DCS have for the most part done that, I agree with you that in Yaw they might have to compromise further. Smokin' Hole

There is no way to do it with substantial realism. But anything is an improvement over flying down the same canyon day after day. A DC generator would need to look at the battle field in much the same way that the old SSI turn-based war simulations. Every nuance of the battlefield will be elusive but a good generator would provide enough to give most of us the sense that there is a war going on out there.

Well sure. When I get in a 737-800 sim there are just three people: Me, the FO, and the sim instructor. It's all set pieces. No ATC. No other aircraft. No Pax. No FAs. Just us and a tight sim schedule. It trains us very well, but it's not immersive...it's training. DCS isn't training for me, it's entertainment but I want as much of the illusion of realism as possible. Smokin' Hole

I don't want the trim disabled I just want something realistic. A pilot has his feet on the pedals which are displaced evenly when he steps in the chopper. If he applies full left rudder and trims, the rudder will be displaced fully to the left with his feet on the floor--so far so good. But that pilot will still be able to apply full right rudder although I'd guess he would experience some resistance as he overrides the trim. In Black Shark (and MAYBE the real Kamov--God Forbid!) the pilot does not have that right rudder/anti-torque authority until he trims some right rudder back. I hope this isn't how the Ka50 was designed. If so, I feel for the pilots flying the thing. My Saitek pedals are not the same as that pilot's pedals--I understand that. But isn't there a way provide rudder trim but perhaps with very little authority--maybe just enough to keep the ball centered through the entire speed range but not enough to trim full deflection. In the meantime I just usually put my feet on the floor when I trim. Smokin' Hole

Textures High. Scenes High. Visibility Range Medium. I think you either have incredible eyes or you are overstating the unrealism of the sim. I find that I can see most vehicles on a clear day well outside their effective kill circle. Bigger vehicles can be seen at 10 kms+. Good luck doing that with your eyes. Manpads are trickier but still far easier than the real world. Two things help me: 1) Use the skhval scan mode with a high scan rate. That way you can concentrate on flying while peeking at the CRT for signs of life. 2) Turn 180 degrees away from any LWS lamp, extend a couple of miles then face the offending bad guy and send a few vikhrs on his way. 3) The Ka50 has dreadful over-the-nose visibility by helo standards so I sometimes fly with the door open side-slipping to the left with full or near-full right rudder. It would be an incredibly stupid thing to do in real combat but in the game it works--plus its fun. Now lets talk about trees... Smokin' Hole

good...beat me to it.

Could it be that your stick isn't centered? I would start with the control panel for your stick and move on from there. After that sit on the ramp and try different stick and trim stettings while referencing the control position indicator (Cntl-Enter). Regards, Smokin' Hole

Is it possible to create a third party campaign generator for DCS? I ask because the lack of a real Head-to-Head element makes long-term playability questionable in my opinion, at least in multi-player. What if a server could, after shut-down, pass along unit position, strength, and supply level to the 3rd party generator, and then that generator could then "rewrite" the mission with new unit levels and tasks that the server could then start with at re-boot? This may have been tried with LOMAC but LOMAC has the H2H element that makes it fun even in static missions that run the same day after day, month after month. DCS needs something different. The image I have in mind is the MultiVipers server running Falcon 4:AF. Campaigns run for days or weeks before one side claims victory. Players care about the outcome though their individual roles in that outcome are minimal. Players can either fly Packages generated by the campaign engine or pick their own targets and grab some friends to help take 'em out. The illusion that you are part of something bigger makes for a much better MP experience. I'm not suggesting that ED change anything (...or...much)--DCS is the greatest sim yet made. I'm just asking if it is possible to have an evolving on-line battlefield. Regards, Smokin' Hole

Fortunately Kamov and ED were nice enough to include a feature which allows us to completely dispense with this Autopilot nonsense. It's called (erroneously) a Flight Director. Yes, it does add garbage to the HUD but that garbage clears the instant you start fighting. All hail the Flight Director! Smokin' Hole

How 'bout a Hind, a Hip, a Su24, and an Afganistan map. Pure love, baby. Smokin' Hole

I routed an AI Ka50 as FAC controller giving him 4 waypoints including Take Off and Landing. The two in the middle defined a loop I wanted him to fly. Each Loop had a target area with a radius that came just a few miles shy of touching either waypoint. Upon reaching the "End Loop" point, he proceded on a flightpath roughly perpendicular to the line drawn by the two waypoints. He continued to fly in that direction with a few zigs here and there for about 20 minutes. I think he would have eventually run out of fuel flying west but the track ended before he met his doom. Smokin' Hole

I assigned a lone Ka50 as AFAC. He was engaged by a patrol of Iglas at which point he evaded, returned, and shot all 4 pylons of smoke rockets at the bad guys. Shouldn't a FAC let loose no more than 2 or 3 smokes so that he can continue to be useful after designating an enemy location. Idealy the logic would be 2 smokes, keep searching, smoke the original baddies after the first rockets stop smoking. Regards, errrr, Smokin' Hole

Same here. Big improvement in BS. FC and IL2 unchanged after Vista (both were perfect anyway). Smokin' Hole Vista Ultimate 64 Mac Pro 2 x Intel Zeon Quad 4 Gig Memory (2 Gigs was fine)

I wish we could freeze the world of Military sims at circa 1990. After that, accurate modeling becomes a compromise between what is known and fantasy. The equipment available during the cold war was the most enjoyable to fly and simple enough to master. Trying to model today's hardware and today's netcentric warfare will result in less enjoyable aircraft and near unplayable battlefields. And this clamor for the F-14? Why? It was designed to fly far from the fleet and launch a Phoenix at an unseen enemy 50 + NM away. Without Tom Cruise at the stick, it has about as much BFM capability as a B-737. It makes me want to take a nap just writing about it. ED, stick to Russian designs! They're beautiful and ugly all at once. And they are eminately flyable. Love and peace, Smokin' Hole

When this Dual/Multi-core "trick" was shared on this forum I investigated it pretty thoroughly because I needed to evaluate an expensive Vista purchase. What I learned is that Vista handles DirectX differently, and according to Intel, better than XP. My theory, based on a complete and utter ignorance on how computers work, is that Vista allows one core to handle the game while the other(s) share the DirectX load. A little searching on YouTube will yield an Intel presentation that explains Vista, Processor sharing, and DirectX. Smokin' Hole