JayPee

Recently I dug a bit into what a new rig would cost me. I'm not saying I plan on buying one, just looking around. So far I've understood I would need a Z87 to fully benefit from overclocking a Haswell dash-K CPU. However, I cannot for the life of me figure out which motherboard I should pick. Just looking at one local supplier alone gives me about 20 MBs with a Z87, varying from 80 bucks to 350, either ASUS, MSI, or Asrock. I always thought that once I select 2133 RAM speed, dual/triple/quad channel, and the minimum number of USB ports, I would end up with one or two models of which I buy the cheapest one. So, what's up with this? And most importantly, do I really need a more expensive MB?

In case one or more Lego enthousiasts still visit this topic, check out this guy's collection of airforce and navy aircraft. He builds both rotary and f/w. I have yet to find somebody who models it to a greater perfection. Truly amazing.

Duct tape's like the Force! It has a light side and a dark side, and it binds the universe together.

I always thought TACAN worked exactly like VOR+DME, but although the end results are the same (you get your bearing and range), what happens under the hood is different. Understood. So when flying over Svalbard it would be slightly off but that's about it? Are you talking about TACAN or VOR DME?

One thing I've been struggling with regarding navigation is the following... The VOR DME or TACAN station transmits 360 degrees and it is aware of where the north is. Additionally the distance to the ACFT can be determined. Next to this, the ACFT comes with a compass so the difference in degrees between its heading and the north can be determined as well. So as far as I would summarise it comes down to the following: angle a is known (VOR) distance Z is known (DME) angle b is known (compass on the ACFT) Now if the ACFT wants to determine the location of the VOR DME or TACAN station relatively to itself, as is what the HSI shows you, it would need to know angle c to combine angle b + angle c. However, for angle c you would need to know two of the following, all which are unknown: distance X distance Y angle d Where am I missing the obvious? If north were just upward for the ACFT and for the VOR DME as well then angle c would simply be 180 minus angle a. But since distance Z is greater than zero, there is a triangle: magnetic north - ACFT - VOR DME. :pilotfly:

In real life the 184 is an improved version over the 131. In DCS however, ECM functionality is simplified and so far I have not been able to notice a difference. If for realism's sake you want to immitate a jet of which the squadron's using either one, pick that one.

YA RLY! CPTN OBVS

Not skilled enough to take out your targets with one? :-P

Got it. Still leaves the matter partly unanswered on the relation between ED and TFC.

Who is TFC in relation to ED? Well I'm not familiar with the exact definitions in English, I only know them in Dutch. In any case Ubisoft didn't 'make' the game, they just made sure it ended up in stores and in customers' hands, right?

Who is TFC in relation to ED? While ED was the producer?

So how's the closed BETA going?

I could imagine they somehow split off the consumer market department and merged it somehow with the then already existing ED. Hopefully somebody with more insight will reply.

HMDs: why do HUDs remain? Guess you all have a valid point regarding newness, redundancy, and HMDs being an upgrade applied many years after the design of an ACFT. Yet I find it odd that the 64A has had the IHADSS since the first model without setting a sort of industry wide trend.

Interesting! What I get from the first clip is that TFC is actually the party who iniated it all.

Well, I wonder why? What's the point of still using a fixed HUD in conjunction with an HMD? I would think it is less obtrusive to the pilot's view and since the whole base unit for the HUD could be left out it might give the opportunity to lower the front dash giving an even better front view? Take the Apache for example.

Well.. Who is/are TFC in relation to ED? On almost every official article and website I find "TFC & ED". Ar far as I could find in a quick Google attempt TFC is a club or organisation of WW2 era airplanes enthousiasts. What do they have to do with ED and developing the DCS sandbox and its modules? Just wondering... And since we're at it anyway, how do ED and Ubisoft exactly relate? Although I did not search for this myself so excuse me if it's pretty easy to Google it..

Flight Qualifications Campaign Not really BFT specific but I was just wondering going through the training... IRL, do checklist items have to be followed in the exact same order as written down or are you free to set up your own sequence as long as you don't skip anything and as long as you stay within one section before going to the other? E.g. complete pre-flight in whatever order before going to engine start? I'm asking this because the mission script does not care for the order pf checks/actions it seems.

This!! ^ Hopefully Belsimtek would take on the modeling of it, given their experience with rotorcrafts. That'd just be awesome. Besides, however did it is the first to have modeled a tilt rotor FM. Too bad it's not going to happen...

So it's not possible from the server's perspective to overwrite the screenshot command to do, well.. nothing?

Fantasy you say? Definitely the Aerospatiale SA-2 Samson! Or any generation of the Orca VTOL.

Just thinking out loud here, isn't it possible to implement a sort of anti flood solution server side? Something like a 10 second mandatory delay, no screenshot gets taken if you hit Print Scrn within those 10 seconds?

How to detect and counter an incoming IR SAM? I am talking about currently not knowing how ED implemented the principle of a base unit with a RADAR launching a missile which -at least in its final stage- will depend on its own sensors to home in on heat/IR. Perhaps the term pitbull was confusing by which I referred to the AMRAAM: it is initially guided by its host's RADAR and finally by its own. Same would be the case with an SA-13. RADAR base unit to spot and track you, missile's IR sensor to home in on you.

How to detect and counter an incoming IR SAM? I take an example of what you refer to would be the SA13. Question remains, how are RADAR equipped base unit(s) with optically guided missiles that go pitbull in their final stage modeled.

To do what, counter both RADAR and IR in one programme in case ED's logic has an earlier anti RADAR prog selected while an IR missile is incoming? Sounds a bit like a very inefficient and unrealistic workaround to make up for a flaw. Not quite sure what to make of your reaction..