PFunk1606688187

Customers feeling entitled to better communication and transparency from the vendor with whom they must have an ongoing relationship in order to utilize the product? Naw, thats crazy.

Its not as if these forums are particularly under moderated as it is.

I never said they MADE ME use my real name, just that every goddamned time I log into youtube or something its like "Would you like to use your real name? Would you like to permanently change your account to that instead?" If I'm half awake and press the wrong button I'm probably gonna spend hours looking for a way to undo it. Its kind of like when you're on the playground and someone keeps trying to hand you a joint til you take a toke. I can make my own decisions, its just annoying. If you're gonna go at a hater, best you actually read what he said, yo.

There you go. So many layers to the CDU. I also never use those dials. I use UFC Function shortcuts almost exclusively.

P-51 is from like 2012 while the A-10 is what... 2011 or 2010? Not the youngest or the oldest. P-51 has always been worst performing craft with the DCS label on it. I remember I would play with some friends and I'd scream my head off anytime the one friend of ours would spawn in the P-51 cause anytime I looked at it my frames went to crap. Not all aircraft are created equal. There's no reason for it to be more resource hungry either owing to its total lack of avionics and that the A-10C itself contains plenty of eye candy externally. I put it down to optimization.

Perhaps this is another of those bugs that's never gonna get fixed.

I may be wrong, but I think this is the difference between KCAS and KIAS. The HUD is corrected for instrument errors while the steam gauge is not. However what I remember is how it being something to do with errors above sea level and you look pretty close to sea level so... I dunno.

There's a difference between adding more stuff to an old engine that can't hack it with modern hardware and converting an old game engine to use features of more modern ones that allows said game engine to better utilize modern hardware and reduce the bottlenecks that exist. If EDGE won't improve performance on some level then its a waste of time, considering how bad DCS can be for people with very beefy hardware in its current state.

Done.

I just dislike google's constantly changing user interfaces. Youtube especially annoys me in this regard. I hate google for making Chrome into the Call of Duty of web browsers. That ruined Opera. And sometimes I don't want to log my master account into everything so that it automatically logs something I do on some random website so that it can spit it back at me when I'm browsing another. That shit is so parasitic. I remember how facebook would link my private life into some random crap I was reading on Scribd. This happened when I would log in and Facebook automatically linked the accounts and suddenly my real name is appearing on some website I never wanted it on. I can accept the convenience of linked accounts just fine, its the way they keep trying to get my real name on everything that bothers me. I prefer my online anonymity and the likes of google just try and make that harder. I feel corps like this really hamper user choice and thats my biggest issue. Gimme my choices back bitch. I don't own an Iphone and I am not lost when the interface isn't the exact same on every device. I prefer my choices open as in "would you like this?" instead of "DO THIS NAOW!!!!! even though technically you don't have to" Also I hate nested menus and everytime there's an update to youtube or something owned by google I fully expect to find some option buried in a new menu. I have had to add a whole extra button press to every video I ever watch on youtube now thanks to them nesting the video quality behind another menu layer (Click the gear, then click the quality). That shit is so annoying. There's so much room on my screen and they hide this stuff for some reason.

Yes because the USAF has given up the notion of combined arms support in favour of lone wolf air frames that need no help defending themselves even though they aren't A2A fighters. This is specifically why the B-52 and AC-130 are still being retained. They posses superior anti-fighter capability. The B-52's enormous radar cross section in particular will be such an anachronism in the tech wars of the future that Russian radar systems will shut down due to incredulity. Meanwhile the Apache gunship will remain invulnerable to enemy fighters due to a badass factor of 11 which causes any Russian who attempts to attack it to shut down like an android in an episode of the original Star Trek.

This is only a true statement if you mean it exclusively with respect to using the waypoint page to search for steer points, though it would be a convoluted and silly way to do it. Either add the waypoint to the flight plan in the FPM page by typing the name of it into the scratch pad til it auto fills then activate the FLIGHT PLAN mode on the AAP Steer knob or change the steer knob on the AAP to MISSION and scroll through the steer points using the steer rocker on the UFC until the desired waypoint is your steer point. There might be another way that I've overlooked but those two are pretty much the main way to do it. It makes no sense to have to create a waypoint to steer to it if its already in the database. Also, as shagrat has said CDU Divert page works for airports, though only for airports.

I wonder if Nevada is going to be atop a spherical globe rather than Black Sea's flat plane.

Probably to some extent, though the whole resolution, textures, terrain detail, and FOV issues won't be solved by it, not to mention the lack of G effect. The only thing Oculus will fix is the peripheral vision issue, but its offset by the new issue of having total sensory deprivation with respect to your computer. I don't know if that'll be worth it for me. I think significantly better terrain detail, a much higher resolution, and a wrap around projector set up would be far more effective at fixing these CCIP specific issues. Its also about a LOT of experience.

I think its to some degree the aversion to the disorientation that comes from flying in a sim looking through a narrow field of view. Even those who have a TrackIR have to train themselves to maintain situational awareness differently than a real person would since there are no seat-of-the-pants cues and while rolling and pulling its so easy to lose sight of your target since the monitor resolution is so pathetically below human acuity and on top of it the terrain is far less individual looking compared to real life and the textures are nowhere near as sharp as real life. Ultimately most gamers are min maxers at heart. Pushing is slower than pulling but thats actually better for those who have a hard time keeping eyes on the target. Without a teacher to bust their asses into doing it the right way they'll take the easier road. Thats not just gamers even, thats humans.

In this context as a rule (meaning there are exceptions) I try not to push the nose except to keep the dive angle from shallowing out.

Start here. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=99688 There's another lengthy thread that I can't find. I forget if there are any pics of HUD references in that thread.

You either have to create a flight plan and put it in it then set the CDU steer dial to FLT PLAN or set the CDU steer dial to MISSION and scroll the steer points til you find the one you created.

Set the slider to Bands in the Saitek software and have the forward and aft most range of the Slider (0-10% and 90-100%) bound to the appropriate keyboard keys. I use this same method so that I can have my mouse nubbin as my speedbrake control which is just about the most convenient place for it. Also I'm pretty sure that the speedbrake switch is not a slider in the real aircraft but a 3 way switch spring loaded to centre. With that in mind I think that using the mouse nub is the most realistic option given its positioning and its behavior as basically a spring loaded 3 way switch (if you only use it for forward and back range, not up and down). Also, in case you're unaware, the function of the speedbrake switch in the real aircraft is pulling towards you to open and pushing away to stow. This seemed backwards to me at first, but now I prefer it that way. It took DCS A-10C for me to finally start liking that useless mouse nub.

Where would I be without you. :lol:

No. They're just too fast to be of use for very long before flying back to the tanker.

The reloading Dragon is powered by the A-10's own hydraulics? Thats a stroke of genius. It really is the best airplane for flying as near as you can get to the FLET.

I imagine someone could do a brilliant LUA export mod that links that switch to some script that'll record your HUD. Follow it up with some tweaks in an editing program to give it that sweet purple glow, a few lens flares, and we're good to go. Why are my ideas always so much better than my skills?

Its a shame. I have no problems being proven wrong by knowledgeable people, when they have permission to share that knowledge anyway. Heh, I just meant with respect to that single comment, not to your whole job. I had no intention of denigrating your work. I am looking forward to the Hawk and I very much like how I see VEAO do business. Thanks for sharing what info you can.

I just don't understand how flight modeling and ASM has anything to do with it when we're talking about the switch states which are themselves not high fidelity simulations, just the switches which trigger commands that tell the game engine to do the stuff that is really complicated. Surely you're not telling me that flipping the taxi light on and off in a shared cockpit is just as complicated to accomplish as syncing the CDU INS/GPS and target data in a tandem cockpit? TF-51 jumpseat as proof of concept. Seems like that'd be the obvious place to start as its a very simple aircraft with no avionics and nothing for the passenger to do but look around. It also means that the free part of DCS will be instantly available to anyone who wants to ride along with an experienced pilot, meaning you can probably get the hooks in them even faster because they won't need to learn how to start up a P-51 to see how cool it all is. Sounds like rock solid marketing to me. As far as other aircraft with dual controls, for the purposes of teaching people to fly its greatly advantageous and just plain fun. When people suck at DCS and need to learn its hardly avionics you're gonna sit them down and work on first. Lastly, even single seat aircraft could have a sync'd spectator mode where you could literally watch someone's inputs as they describe to you how to fly something or how to go about performing a complicated combat task or whatever. Even if the systems aren't sync'd just seeing how someone sets themselves up for a bombing run, or the flow of someone in a dogfight would be pretty cool. I get it though, you're a salesman. You won't compromise your product with a half finished thingy, etc etc, whatever. DCS however is pretty much a perpetually unpolished, poorly optimized, work in progress. Nothing is ever done. There are bugs that seriously detract from the fidelity of every module that will probably never get fixed. New things also come to DCS really slowly. Most people here would probably jump at the chance to share a cockpit with a friend, even if its incomplete.