A.S

That´s correct! Appreciate his work, but question the consequences. They built the nuke in good believe, but it wiped out a whole city. allow me an add which i just typed in HL: it is a common thing to read out and export datas to external devices (pit-builders), but not to create a tool, which can read out and calculate more datas then it is meant to be from the core itself... which also creates later an "onboard-awacs" (funey spoken) picture at will... In shooter collectives also called "wall-hack" :D You should suggest your principles to DCS to be implemented ingame..for everyone and as fundamental systems, not 3rd party BigBrother-App.

Unless it is not an offical part of the game core itself, which is just exported to MFDs and such, it remains a 3rd party advantage tool (cheat-app) ...period. No dicussuion, because it is as simple as that. (Tek: take it as compliment splashing bandits "knowing" they have better "weapons" , that is how i would think about it)

:megalol:

GG replies as usual in his "i give a ###" ridiculing way, cuz he is part of building and using that thing.

Topol, you are missing the point. Noone is attacking Yoda, but all have questions about the big "What IF" and consequences. Read my post one klick back. Actually he is devolping the "wunderwaffe" and a pure "cheat" program in 3rd party usage, unless it is not an officially implemented part of the game core itself. Simple as that you have to see that.

Stop playing dumb, you know that i know that you can read out way more then the necessary datas used for the purpose, you know that we know that this "stinks" bigtime. The idea itself is absolutly great, and i remeber you even back in days "dreaming" of datalink fancy-shiny-blinking tools in lockon after you expierienced it in Falcon. But doing that over network-share-connections is plain simple wrong, bigtime ..period. IF datalink, then the game should manage or do that internal, unaccessable. Developing things in euphoric love for the topic itself is one thing, but the responsibility what consequences that might have -even though, the "maker" thinks, he is the only one who knows - you dont see? You should have learnt from the past as you released that exploid vid and with what followed afterwards. So my question to calm the folks down here....what gurantee you can give in terms of security and the protection that it cant be mis-used? Thx...me out

Will be fun to watch...i was just thinking...for those who love other kind of "Angels" too, they can watch the VSFS 2009 Show :megalol: http://motionempire.com/Watch_Victorias_Secret_Fashion_Show_2009_-2009-_Documentary_Online_for_Free_91035.html#video_player boom boom boom ...pooow:D wooot ducking* reps inbound

The clouds really need a work-on. They all look like puffy patterns spread around...not variety, no sphere clouds......true.

Its not a super difficult topic at all. The techniques instead are ultra classified. You can read very accurate material like Modern Missile Guidance by Rafael Yanushevsky or Radar System Analysis and Design by Bassem R. Mahafza - which both i have - but you dont need to in order to understand the principles. Very simple demonstrated: Imagine a signal-emitter (radar) which is emitting rays out to get the "ping" or reflection back in order to "locate" postions and/or closure and more data etc etc.... Those rays can be in conventional understanding sine-waves, but its a little bit more complex. The signals sent out have a very unique frequence, amplitute, singnature AND/OR patterns. The reciever (the bandit) of course detects those rays noticing that he "is searched for". Now what basically happens if we speak about "ECM-jamming" is that the reciever reads out those signals and uses those to sent back a distracting countersignal....think about interferences, phases, polarities, ghost images -stuipid analogy- but helps understanding ....reality is -as always- little bit more comlex, somtimes even carrier signals and spoting signals in cooperation from your wingy and other sources ....anyways. This "radar fights ECM, ECM fights back radar game" is a massive process and one reason why modern jets have calculation power in their systems cracking easily the terrabyte range. The days of ole motorola chips are gone. The basic idea is to deny a save lock as long as possible or to distract a "carrier signal", no matter if it is the radar of the jet or the the missile seeker. I know this is very simple explained, but gives a picture for the difficulty about the quesiton "now, how do we simulate this ?". What global variables do/can/will matter, which ones can be implemented in simplistic ways in the game code (remember, we dont have supercomputers) and so on. As much more variables or details can be implemented in a efficient way...as better it is, but in certain points you have to make "assumptions" to set some variables. F4AF does that pretty neet in my humble opinion. Having them all dynamic calculated all the time would just exceed the cpu power. But then again...those "assumptions" and the question "why are they made in certain ways" ..and "how are they implemented"...are important! Are they based on unpractical reality-copy efforts, are they totally "wild assumptions" or DO they represent the fundamentel basic concepts in an acceptable fashion so it permits a BVR combat scenario in a proper, or should i say book-style or classic understanding. The art of simulation, copying the nature in simplified ways, but same results :) PS: and no, i dont wanna lock the Jamming background-noise-guy 300nm away. :D

That was an interesting story ( it just happens, that i know few things or some ) ..but better i shut up :music_whistling: Future matters.

Very sweet read. Feels good to "hear" (read) an interactive voice after so long from the Team. I always missed this kind of feedback here. After almost loosing hope it turnes out that things moving forward now..... or in the words of BoRaT: Greeaaat SucccCSseeeSS :D

Thanks Total for that short and clear explantion. Precise and a joy to read unlike some other ridiculing replies from so called "self proclaimed experts". :smilewink: whos greatest radar expierience might have been the micorwave in the kitchen.

no comment

Intersting thread, let´s see how the practical implementations turn out once released. Looking forward to discover more changes then just added "delays" in order to assure better gameplay. Wonder if i still will be able to lock a jammer signals from 100nm.....etc etc....and few other things...

Wasnt directed at you Kuky...just generally....cuz sometimes im getting bored of over and over hearing consumer-typical graphics eurphorias with no sense "eyes" for the core or any other substance. Give Hawx TIR and Hotas Control...so what will it be = ? the most realistic sim cuz it looks like?...sad part is..probably even yes :doh:

it looks more realistic = it is more realistic ? :music_whistling:

Happy Birthday wild beast :D

ok, Mig-29KAB then.

:blow:

Yeah, the Mig-29AB would be cool :music_whistling:

The LOD switch (higher to lower level of detail) is defined by the LOD value in general in your visibility settings as multiplicator with the LOD values set for each model in modellod.txt file. In other words you can define by yourself - if you know how- at what range in meters this "switch" will/should occur. Furthermore we (3Sqn Kuky and me) realized that many vehicles in modellod.txt had 100.000m as standart values set, some not. The result of this was high to very high cpu-cycles caused by calculations of those unnessarily high LODs even on objects far beyond visible natural range. Stupid if you ask me. A classic "the developer had positive intentions, but no practical expierience" case. We changed those values and at lockonfiles.com you can find a improved modellod.txt file as far as i know. Fly over 100 ground vehicles without FPS suicide. For the lack of coding efficiency according to buildings i have never heart a solution which would make the performance as good as in IL2 especially if you fly over huuuuge cities. IL2 deals with this topic very elegant. No matter what settings you have OR what FOV ( Field of View) Zoom you use, the objects (crafts) will appear as dots then later as shapes in the same fashion and manner, only depending on actual range. Bravo solution. Good ole FalconAF has in terms of performance a superb solution in that case....fly in a real war with 100-1000 objects ACTIVE and you will not get FPS losses because someone thought it would be good to model everything with 24.000 polygons per unit over 100km :megalol: Coding good gfx in a smart code- and calculation efficient way is THE challange of gamemakers....lets hope DCS has a "thought" on this too. Less is more in this field, and the best programers get paid exactly for that skill.

:megalol:

aerosoft it is not......for sure not ..also no version of falcon or fighterops....definitly NOT

:tomato:

Excellent Sound-Work :thumbup: