JOKERACTS

possibly insufficient RAM or incompatible RAM configuration or RAM fault? check the CPU temperature? sufficient cold?, SLI or crossfire? Adjust the RAM speed, timing clock and voltage in BIOS? but I solved or greatly reduced the crash in single player by disabling the motherboard 's on board Ethernet controller and turn off the LAN Switch and MODEM. after that there is no crash at all! , that was really weird? with all the old setting I usually used. if I like to online or play online game, I will turn on the modem and Ethernet controller.

I noticed the AI controlled aircraft landed and parked with turbine engine stop at static. But the turbine engine sound remain running?

In the A-10C training mission, I noticed the external model texture would changed after zooming out? and how to assign the mouse button for certain keyboard action?

The rockets pods also look bad, lack of detail, the good thing in the stock rocket pod was the launched rockets would removed from the model, the previous rocket model mod kept the rocket in the pods even after all the rocket was launched. the bad thing was the UB-32M1 rocket pods still in 2D texture model, the B-20 and UB-13 did not show the rockets munition?

someone said the missile physics problem? someone said VIKHR too fast? someone make a DCS Missile mod? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=131806 they ask the Eagle Dynamics to implement the missile mods into the next update? all the simmers just want to play with the simulator that simulated to real life if possible. This should not be just a blind fake adjustment of missile just to make the US equipment dominated everything. the Eagle Dynamics and DCS World team should be able to program all the real world physics with all those engineering and science calculation in to those stuff. I don't know how fast is the VIKHR missile? Wikipedia.org said 600m/s? but on which condition? launch from static 0km/h launcher? or launch from a fast moving vehicle?, if the specification said 600m/s was launch from static 0KM/H launcher, then if the VIKHR launch from fast moving SU-25T at 600KM/H, off course the VIKHR would reach beyond 600m/s. from the DCS missile mods, they complaint about Russian missile should be shorter range than the US missile? , the missile adjustment is not just to adjust to anyway it perform as anyone like, it should be match the real world specification with all those real world physics, .... the recent study on why the F-15C and AIM-120 missile gain famous for Air superiority of effective weapons. Where did the American fight with those weapons? they fought at IRAQ and Afghan and Israel ' F-15A against Syrian 's MIG-21, down only 2 MIG-25. from the world map, google map or Bing map, everyone can see clearly the nation IRAQ was quite small, the moment operation desert storm or Iraqi freedom, those Iraqi was fought ALONE. The American throw several thousand? fighters aircraft, Cruise missile, B-2 stealth bomber....... the things that knock out the Iraqis 's defence was those GPS/satellite guided Cruise missile that hit the air defence and airfield, the F/A-18, F-15, F-16 attack in great number with about 5-10 versus 1, then the B-2 bomber destroy the remaining defence, Apache and A-10 hitting ground force...., the AWACS, UAV locate the Iraqis fighter aircraft and they throw 5-10 versus 1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the problem, I fly the SU-25T and can lock on the air target with Shkval optical TV within 10-8KM and attack with VIKHR, but when I fly the KA-50 equipped with the same Shkval optical TV, the KA-50 cannot lock the air target within 10-8KM? but the TV clearly identified the moving object is an OBJECT. this is weird? ALOT OF vehicle data values was varied? check the attached picture, the best accurate should be the SU-27

the current update 1, did not fix any of it?

that could be the Su-33 still in scripted ship take off model? because theoretically the Su-33 cannot take off with full fuel, the maximum ship take off for fuel weight was the 6000KG only? in real carrier take off condition, the ship can would sail at 30knots / 55KM/h, that was extra starting speed for the Su-33 and possible allow the Su-33 take off with full 8500KG of fuel and with full weapon loaded. I think the simulator could be contain physics mistake, that cause the planes in it did not meet the original specification as the online website, such as the combat radius, altitude, ....

after I recheck the actual unit value for the thrust in the "DCS World\Scripts\database", "PlaneConst" file, it was not in "lbf" but in "KG" !, (thrust in force Newton) = (Mass) KG (Earth Gravity acceleration) but, after I keyed in the Newton unit value, i tested the edited Su-27 fully loaded with Air to Air missile and ECM pods, full fuelled start from ramp and fly around at high altitude, I got nearly 1500KM Combat patrol radius?, actually I fly it with afterburner for full flight to 13-15KM altitude and ranged about 1200KM+ with out refuel. So I assumed if I fly it with normal cruising thrust and 8-11KM altitude, it can reach the 1500KM combat patrol radius without refuel? WHAT Do you all think and fell that should be the actual specification? that meet the various online Su-27 specification. Who was the Real Su-27 pilot there can comment about it? the simulator could be using the Force in "Newton" unit for the thrust? and the data was keyed in with Mass "KG" unit? it was about 10x lower thrust !, maybe that cause the fuel being expend in 10x times faster and cause all the aircraft fly in very short range and lower altitude? rather than the actual specification FACT of those aircraft on the website? how about the missile specification? the missile ranged was in the correct way?

i just changed some data value in "DCS World\Scripts\database", "PlaneConst" file. At the Su-27 section, "thrust_sum_max" from XXXXX to 150440; "thrust_sum_ab" from XXXXX to 245100. the 5 digit value is believe to be "lbf" unit value, the new 6 digit value was Newton unit value. The simulator believe to using "Newton" unit but the data was keyed in "lbf" value ????? i tested the edited Su-27 fully loaded, full fueled start from ramp and fly around at high altitude, i got about 1500KM Combat patrol radius. i think that should be the actual specification? that meet the various online Su-27 specification. that is very worst, i noticed alot other planes also keyed in "lbf" value! that was very disappointing, maybe this error cause the planes to fly a lot shorter distant and a lot lowered altitude compare with the historical accurate specification?

oh no, after I checked overall data value in "DCS World\Scripts\database", "PlaneConst" file. A lot of inaccurate to historical specification, the planes 's engine thrust value was incorrect!, it was a lot lower and in British/American lbf value. The height and weight was in KG and Meter, the thrust should be in Newton!? maybe this error cause the planes to fly a lot shorter distant and a lot lowered altitude compare with the historical specification?

that simulator really need correction, the Su-25 max ceiling height with clean load was 7KM, while both Su-25T and Su-25TM /Su-39 share the same air frame, with max ceiling of 12KM. the Mig-31 maximum reachable height was 28KM, sevice ceiling of 21KM. Mig-25 with maximum reachable height of 37.65KM, service ceiling of 24.4KM.

first of all before i say anything, i never fly any F-15C, F/A-18C or any aircraft in real world. i do noticed some "fake" in the simulator that could be need to correct. in my custom mission, i fly the Su-33 and aproch the AI F/A-18C with fully loaded with air to air missile on each hardpoint and one external fuel tank at middle at 15KM altitude, the AI Hornet can fly to that high as well, that is weird? since the F/A-18C had its maximum service ceiling 15KM, i dont know what wrong? for F/A-18C to fly that high, the AI would have to jettison all the load out! to climb to that altitude? I read the F-15C Wikipedia, the article said the F-15C fly maximum at 11.6KM to launch the ASAT missile?, how come a ASAT missile and pair of fuel tanks fly that low? from that information, I suspect the F-15C actual service ceiling was around 15KM-17KM-18KM? I think that should be covered up about the weakness or advantage of military hardware?, they just don't want to let people know about their actual capability? the thing you said should learn from school, that mean cheating!, but I never cheat in any school or college, all my capabilities was PURE! if the MIG-25, it had stated in historic test at very high altitude and speed.

i checked various source say the F-15C with service ceiling of 19812 Meters or 65000ft. In the DCS F-15C module said 20KM?, the F-15E with service ceiling of 18200 Meters. i think the F-15C should be able to reach 19812 Meters with clean loadout and with fuel tanks near empty?

why not try the MIG-25 or MIG-31?

since the DCS World already came free with SU-25T, why not the Flaming Cliffs 3 replace the SU-25T for SU-25TM/SU-39? I had checked the "DCS World\Bazar\World\Shapes" folder and found the Kabina-SU-39 , the SU-39 was SU-25TM, the Air to Air radar in Flaming Cliffs 3 module should be able to work with the Kopyo radar pod in the SU-25TM? if the SU-25T share the same cockpit with the SU-25TM, the 3D cockpits should be able to work? why not the next update add the SU-39/SU-25TM for the Flaming Cliffs 3 module?

I just realized the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov was just fully operational in 1995, Su-33 in 1995-1998. the USA 's AIM-120 missiles first use in 1992, the B version delivered in 1994, C version in 1996. the C-7 version start development at 1998, then it should be 2000s weapon. I still remember the last version before the current update, the DCS World encyclopaedia said the AIM-120C was C-7 model, after the recent DCS World update, I noticed the encyclopaedia change the AIM-120C-7 to AIM-120C. I also noticed the Wikipedia.org article about AIM-120, the AIM-120C-7 suddenly changed to AIM-120C-5, the specification of C-7 was covered.

before anything, first thing must be done is to solve all available errors, 1st => Solve the Su-33 and Su-25T 3D cockpits error, GET THE EDGE ENGINE!, Direct X 11!, PhysX?, SLI/Crossfire, ... G-Synch? 4K?, Variable V-Synch?, TXAA?, FXAA?, Sound Engine? Future Direct X 11.2? Direct X 12? 2nd => Add 3D cockpits for Mig-29A, Mig-29G and Mig-29S 3rd => Work on current available planes in the simulator for 3D cockpits and flyable, F/A-18C, F-16A, F-16C, F-5E, Mirage-2000, Su-25TM, F-117A? and those 2 seat planes, Su-30, Mig-25?, Mig-31?, F-14A?, F-14D?, F-15E?, F-4?, SH-60B?, Ka-52?, Ah-64A?, Ah-64D?, Ah-1W?, UH-60?, Su-34?, Tornado?, Mi-24?, ...... 4th => Improve the existing 3D model for those AI planes, SH-60B, F-14A, F-5E, Mig-25, Tu-160, F-16, Ka-52, Ka-27, Su-34, ....... 5th => Add new vehicles, B-2?, P-3C?, ....?????, Flyable bomber? DON'T do or NOT RECOMMANDED to work on WW2 stuff or older 1950s-1970s planes.

certain stuff was too old for the Russian equipment, the Su-27, Su-33 was very old with classic avionics, the R-27 missiles, R-27R, R-27T, R-27ER, R27ET, there were several other type: R-27P, R-27EP, R-27EA, R27EM , those was missing? I tried the FC2 mission, I found the Su-33 equipped with R-27EM missile, FC3 mission editor do not have it? while the USA equipped with AIM-120C-7? a very high end modern missile! ranged of 120-150? KM, Active radar seeker, ECM homing, .... that simulator need more hard work to balance, if EF-2000 or F/A-18E was out, at least Su-27SM2 should be out as well? and the upgraded Su-33 that can load with R-77, Kh-31A Krypton or Kh-41 Moskit anti-ship missile? the Mig-31 should be able to load with remove-able fuel tanks, upgraded version can load with R-77, R-73 even some air to ground missile. before the EF-2000 or F/A-18E out, the other F/A-18C, F-16A, F-16C, Mirage 2000, F-117?, F-5E, AV-8B should be out first for flyable with 6dof cockpit!? those F/A-18C, F-16A, F-16C, F-5E, AV-8B, F-117? suggest to be release in a package as the FC3 packed with various planes, that make it highly valuable! Mirage 2000, Tornado IDS, Tornado GR4, Tornado ADV, suggest to be release in a package as the FC3 packed as well with various planes, that make it highly valuable! the F-14A was lack of 3D detail, and the F-14D not in the simulator? the Mig-25 also lack of 3D detail, and various other planes. I Checked the Dangerous Water naval simulator in youtube, it featured P-3C and SH-60B! Mi-24V, Ka-27?, Mi-28?, Ka-52, Ah-64A, Ah-64D to make flyable?

the exact maximum fuel weight is 8500KG for Su-33, those problem should be the Simulator 's Su-33 wrongly tweaked/adjusted? , the 3000KM range at high altitude could be work with the pilot climb to high altitude and refuel with the Tanker to full fuel, then, fly straight for 3000KM? while the aircraft was clean load, only loaded with fuel. i fly the Su-33 with maximum fuel set to only 8500KG, and correction of maximum service ceiling to 17000M, i edit the value on the files contain in the "Scripts\database\" folder. fuel level show about 5000KG, but the fuel drain slowly as it was actually at 8500KG, the problem only at the Cockpit 's Fuel level indicator. there are various factor affect the fuel consumption. are you the person fly the real Su-33? and know all of it?

after I checked the "scripts\database" folder, I noticed a lot of incorrect service ceiling value for various aircraft and some maximum fuel weight value. I noticed some US planes had been adjusted to fly far more higher than the actual specification, while the Russian planes was adjusted to fly a lot lower height? after I checked the information on Wikipedia.org the Mig-25RBT maximum flying height should be 24200 Meter and Mig-25PD maximum flying height should be 24200 Meter without any missile on board, the F-15C should be 20KM, F-14A should be 15200 Meter, Su-33 should be 17KM, Su-27 should be 19KM, F/A-18C should be 15200 Meter, Mig-31 should be 21KM. Su-33 should have maximum internal fuel weight of 8500KG, F/A-18C should be 4930KG!

I am not agree with your fix, when you increase the fuel value to 18800KG, it just became cheat, exact fuel value is 8500KG only for Su-33. The fuel level indicator in the 3D cockpit show exponential ratio of fuel level, after I check it several time, fuel indicator show 51XXKG but the exact fuel was 8500KG. I did not adjust anything but only set the maximum fuel weight to 8500KG for the Su-33, I ignore the fuel level indicator in the 3D cockpit. beside this, I also set the maximum fuel weight to 4930KG for the F/A-18C from 6531KG.

after I checked the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet , the maximum internal fuel weight was 4930KG for the F/A-18C! not 6531KG in the DCS World! the fuel level indicator in the SU-33 3D cockpit was showing fuel level in exponential ratio, when I set the fuel level at 850KG in mission editor, it will correctly indicated at 850KG in the 3D cockpit, but when I set at 8500KG, it will show 5XXXKG in the 3D cockpit?

Version 1.2.10.30996 The SU-33 cockpit did not show any ECM indicator on or off state, the Actual maximum Fuel weight for SU-33 was 8500KG, But in the 3D cockpit fuel level indicator showed it was at maximum fuel level of 61XXKG; that should be the maximum fuel of F/A-18C! I checked the SU-33 specification setting in the documents placed at scripts folder, the max fuel weight was set at 9400KG, if I set it to 8500KG, the 3D cockpit fuel indicator will show 5XXXKG fuel level?!!!! that error need urgent fix!, don't swap the SU-33 into F/A-18C performance! Hardcard said he fix it with adjust the max fuel weight to over 15XXXKG? and correct the 3D cockpit fuel level indicator to 9400KG level, the aircraft physics added extra 6000KG!? I think that is not the way to fix the problem correctly??, just like the Su-27 with correct 3D cockpit fuel level indicator and the Su-27 specification in the scripts folder was at 9400KG, that should be the right error free condition!

I think it should be the current available aircraft in the DCS World, the Tornado and Mirage 2000-5, the EF-2000 Typhoon to be release together with the F/A-18E, Su-35, MIG-35... or with the Su-27SM3?

ADD the IR air-to-air missile on the gunship helicopter for self defence to increase realism as real world, ADD live Search And Rescue operation in the gameplay for AI and human transport helicopter player (in campaign, single mission or multiplayer), any fighter, bomber, helicopter, ground attack, transport, helicopter crashed or pilot ejected, there should be SAR operation by transport helicopter or Combined Arm as APC Recon to retrieve the pilot?, by the radio? to inform HQ? in any mission gameplay allow the player to get new aircraft in airport or Aircraft Carrier after rescued and continue with mission objective? rather than just direct re-spawn in multiplayer? allow the Helicopter player to score point in multiplayer?