Sharpe_95

Hi Guys, Really weird. I moved house recently and ever since I moved my PC fan has been going CRAZY (like the PC is about to melt down). It ONLY happens with DCSW, all other games and PC functions are fine. Room/PC is well ventilated, fans are functionally ok, I have removed all dust with dry air spray etc etc. I have tried messing round with graphics setting (not the tick box ones - all of which are off for me) and I have set graphics really high, really low - same thing. It's so loud I can't hear the A10c engine noise in my earphones anymore without turning the volume from min to medium. This has never been the case before and the only thing that has changed in the time since I moved is that: a) I now have my internet (fibre optic instead of copper) coming straight into my PC on the hard line instead of WiFi. b) DCSW has had one or two updates (I was without internet for about three weeks). Anyway, I thought it might be something to do with my PC needing to 'break in' after 3 weeks or so of not being used and it's still happening. Has anyone else experienced anything like this? Is it something to do with the patches recently? Is there a fix? Any thoughts regarding this mystery would be well received - I am stumped! Many thanks, -Sharpe PS: Note the fan ratchets up to maximum the moment I am in game - it doesn't wait for anything it just goes to max. Also, going to F10 view slows it down to something like I used to expect from a heavy gaming session on a warm day.

^Me too. I was expecting a late August release for 1.2.5 at the earliest so agree its good news there :) -Sharpe

I am sure you are right and they are working on all that too - it would be nice. Tangible progress updates on the subject might go a long way to helping buoy the spirits of those that share a similar view to mine. 'Patience is a virtue' and 'good things come to those who wait' might as well be ED's motto. I hope they live by this sword rather than dying by it :-S -Sharpe

Now thats GOT to be worth $150-$200 million!!!!! :thumbup: -Sharpe

Agree. Lets give our support guys. I think we have done the 'its classified' 'its unrealistic' 'its not 100% fidelity' bit to death here. I challenge the nay sayers to read KI's website and kickstarter page in full then tell me hand on heart they dont know what they are talking about. These guys are pro and have as much or more experience of sims than a ED, and certainly on very sensitive programmes too. There is clearly enough info available to be getting along with. And if you think your flying a full 100% sim from an aircraft and weapons systems that are fully declassified then guess again coz A10c is probably somewhere between 75-85% fidelity. Still concerned? Well consider this: Do you really think ED would support and allow a company to use the DCS tag? A tag that is rapidly coming to be a benchmark symbol of quality for HiFi sim modules? Further do you think they would let it into DCS world if it didnt meet ED's own high standard? At the very least people should have faith that ED will protect their own product. Lets give our support to a new developer the same way as we did VEAO (doing highly sensitive 5th gen Typhoon) and coretex (doing highly sensitive 5th gen F/A18 E). Come on guys show a bit of love and dont put negativity into the world.:thumbup: -Sharpe

For those after some non FB links here are: The link to Kenny Interactive's Main Site LINK The link to Kenny Interactive's Kickstarter Page LINK The KI vid that is being touted is available on both sites :)

^ Good to know Silver_Dragon - thanks :) -Sharpe

I have total faith that ED will not let a module have the DCS title if they have no faith in it or think it does not 'fit in'. Having done loads of research it seems Kinney Interactive (or at least the people that work there) have arguably, more experience of military simulators that ED themselves (no offense ED). Further they have worked on some of the most sensitive US platforms to be built in the last couple of decades (B2 and F22). So I have faith that these guys know what they are talking about. Further, as Kinney Interactive have already said, it was not so long ago that the F/A18 E/F was highly classified, but now there is plenty of data available for it. In a way, the F35 is in a similar boat to the Eurofighter Typhoon and (to a lesser degree) the F/A18 E/F. I don't see hundreds of negative comments on the VEAO and Cortex forum areas. Kinney has also said that as more stuff becomes known about the F35 they will continue to support and update it. In the mean time I have confidence (and I am sure ED do, or they wouldn't let them have the DCS branding) that Kinney is well placed to make very accurate, educated assumptions to bring this aircraft into DCSW in the mean time. They have also stated that they are capable and willing to help fix areas of code that need to be corrected for F35 and also potentially build a new map. Not only does this company seem able to build the module, but they also seem happy to help ED along the way too - surely this is no bad thing? Finally, I have to point out that even DCS A10c is not 100% fidelity. The ECM pod does not work against SAM's (ED admit this), the IFF is not realistic (ED admit this too as its far to sensitive to simulate) and we have no way of inputting mission planning and data bricks into the aircraft as in real life. So ask yourself: Do I want a 100% fidelity aircraft (if so why? - coz you can say you can fly it)? Or do you want an aircraft that is fun to fly, as accurately modelled as can be allowed and integrated into one of the best (and hopefully, based on ED plans), probably the single source of all future HiFi flight sims? If you are going to chuck every aircraft out that isn't 100% accurately modelled then this will leave us in a really sad state as even ED will say that the A10c is a 'best effort' but not 100%. In which case, who draws the line at what is/is not acceptable? You? Or the company that owns the core product (DCSW)? Lets be fair, ED will be the ones to say if it 'fits' or not. And I have total faith that they wont let us down - its in their own best interest. In the mean time, I look forward to F35, as I look forward to all HiFi modern aircraft (and even the old war birds too, but not quite as much). If Kinney Interactive is all it says it is then I think we will be in for one hell of a module. Have faith that ED will protect its own interests from something that is a poor effort. With only 13 days to go to hit $75k, if they don't get the pledge they are after then this whole thread may be academic anyway. I for one will be supporting this start up, including putting in £££ - remember, if the project does not start up you get your £££ back (its only released/requested IF it goes live). -Sharpe

I am happy for 1080p min and lets say budget extends to £2000 gbp -Sharpe

Hi all, I am looking to buy a good LED projector that works well/gives a good picture for DCSW. Preferably it should be 1080p and 1920x1200 resolution. Any thoughts? -Sharpe

Seconded. I am sure we can all pick holes in ED and the DCS products, but its only fair to applaud their good points too. ED_Viper has often responded to me in a similar time frame - also on a weekend. Many thanks guys, -Sharpe

Hi Viper that's kind of you - please seem my PM (inbound soon). -Sharpe

Fair enough - I don't suppose you can provide the following data for the SAM's that are modelled in game (or link me where I can go for the accurate data) so we have clarity on the 'correct' info?: 1 - Max range 2 - Min range 3 - Max alt 4 - Min alt 5 - Number of targets the tracking system can track 6 - Number of objects the missile can engage 7 - The number of missile the system can launch 8 - Point defence capable or not (eg can engage PGM's) This would be really helpful for threat cards and as all the open and semi-open sources I have access to (and the military/defence experts I have access to) have the wrong information it would be great to see the correct parameters that are being used in the sim :) - otherwise it makes sorting out threat cards a nightmare. -Sharpe

Hi there, I have been doing some experimentation with Russian SAM's and have noticed the SA15 Tor is operating well outside its parameters. The stated max flight altitude for a Tor Missile (9M330) is 6000m or 20k'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system and for all you wiki snobs out there:smilewink:, Janes IHS repeats these parameters (for those with access you can look it up). I have found that the TOR is consistently firing at F15's at 25k' and the missile chasing is F15's to above 40k'- all of which is well outside its manufacturers stated capability. Parameters: SA15 in open on coast at sea level, AI set to expert. 1) F15 @ 25k flying nose on to Tor. Missile launches, F15 does 55degree climb to 40k (hit and killed) 2) F15 @25k flying nose on to Tor. Missile launches, F15 does 55degree climb to 35k (hit and killed) 3) F15 at 40k flying nose on to Tor. No track, no launch. 4) F15 at 35k+flying nose on to Tor. No track, no launch. 5) F15 above 30k and below 35k flying nose on to Tor. Track launch and kill. MWS delayed to point that you get about a second from MWS to missile hit. The above parameters are repeatable. I assume this is a bug as: a) The Tor system and missile is outperforming its stated capabilities b) How can a missile (from a radio command guided platform) hit a target above the point the tracking system cant track the aircraft (35k+). c) Parenthetical: The MWS seems a bit shaky above 30k (although I don't know enough about the MWS to be able to say if this is deliberate or not). -Sharpe

Ah well if JSOW is modelled maybe it will be available for the FA18 when they release the HiFi as the list I gave above definitely works on the FA18c. -Sharpe

Yeah there are a few weapons already modelled for AI - presumably we will have access to those at a minimum. (I think the full 2000lb bomb suite, AGM88 and AGM84 are already in game for AI I think). While that's a great start id hope that at the very least the SDB and JSOW/JASSAM would also be included as not only would they be really interesting to learn to deploy but would also massively improve the types of scenario available to mission designers and add a really big dynamic to the game as things are. My ethos is if you dont like them, dont use them/have them available but at least they would be there for those that would love to see them in game :) -Sharpe

As title really. I was just wondering if DCS was planning an upgraded weapons pack for the F/A18c? As the real aircraft has access to a very wide and effective/useful weapons suite including: -AGM154 JSOW (already modelled and active with AI) -AGM158 JASSM -AGM88 HARM (already modelled and active for AI) -AGM84 Harpoon and the 'E, H/K' 'SLAM and SLAM-ER (already modelled and active with AI) -2000lb bombs (Dumb/LGB/JDAM) (some modelled and available for AI - strangely there are no JDAMs and not the full range of dumb and LGB's though) -250lb GBU39/40 SDB (due to be integrated on the A10 soon FYI) -Taurus KEPD cruise missile These weapons would add a massively new and exciting dynamic to the game. Not least a desperate need for stand off weaponry of various shapes, forms and sizes. At the very least they would be great to learn to use and to allow mission designers to create a wider selection of mission scenarios. Are any of these weapons planned for F/A18c when it is released? It is clear certain weapons like the AGM88 HARM are already modelled - any word/comments from 'up top' on the rest? Also, as an aside, the SDB is due to be integrated and launched from the A10c. Would there be any chance of an expanded capability to include the much needed stand off capability on the A10c if that weapons program goes live in real life? -Sharpe

test

As my post has been moved here without my knowing kindly do me the favour of taking your pathetic indignation, shoving it back where it came from and leaving it there for someone who gives a damn. As ED have clearly made the same point you have, rather than getting a single quick answer to my question I shall now spend an hour trawling through this thread in search of answers.

Wag's latest post - did I miss something? Hi all,*Today's post from Wags:*http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105800 Is it me or does this not make much sense? He seems to suggest that there will be a F15 and SU27 release this year but he seems to get a bit lost along the way regarding the level of detail in these up coming mods (even the era apparently). Pretty much in the same breath he seems to imply that they (the F15/SU27 mods) will be low fidelity non button pushing and that button pressing (may) come later - surely this would just be re releasing FC3 only with single mods?* He also mentions that DCSW is not limited to one era - presumably referring to the fw190 but he doesn't mention it by name. There are 2 clear points however. 1- the F15 and SU27 mods (whatever they are but I can only assume HiFi or there is no point-i really hope they dont opt for something between LoFi and HiFi) will be out this year. 2- FA18 wont happen till at least next year. TBH If (and I stress this if as I am sure I have this wrong somehow) it is the case that DCS are not releasing F15/SU27 at HiFi level and are only doing some LoFi/LoFi+ fidelity level mods then I find this to be very demoralising. Esp the fact that a HiFi multi role that the sims battlespace environment desperately needs has been pushed to next year in favour of (again please let me be wrong here) a 're release' of LoFi/LoFi+ F15/SU27 and/or the fw190 that still has only a very limited practical functionality in this 21st century/digital battlespace with a 21st century sim, no scenario/era specific map and massively limited targets/historically sensible units to fly against. On the other hand if ive got it wrong and the new F15/SU27 will be HiFi then I will still be sad that FA18 isnt slated for a fast release but understand that with good LoFi mods already in place it makes sense to knock out the HiFi mods of the same aircraft quickly as it's all there ready for them - in which case you can ignore this whole post and im sorry for wasting your time :-S -Sharpe PS: I have a splitting headache so if I have missed something obvious in Wags post or just plain misread it then I apologise in advance.

Its that exact post (and the video that preceded it) that led me to post this. I made the same assumption you made - that the FA18 and F15 were 'imminent'. Of course the most recent post may imply that the FA18 may be sliding right (hope this isn't the case as I am desperate for a HiFi multi role).

Hope your right :) Hope that implies a 2-4 month release for the F15/Su27 to allow for more work on the F/A18. I am still hoping (massively hoping) for a late 2013 or early 2014 release of F/A18 - or earlier ;)

Yes I think you may well be right. Also, on top of the difficulty of Hornet (I quite agree that I could live without carrier ops if it was major issue- although I fear that is heresy for some), they already have a model for the F15 (inside and out) in the F15c FC3 aircraft. I suspect that will add to the speed of the F15c. I cant see an F15E coming out anytime soon. It has the (same??)/similar ground radar to the F/A18. Further, I think the double cockpit conundrum is going to add to the wait for that airframe.

Hey Tin Tin good to see ya again :) Yeah your probably right - I cant help myself though :-S

I am not sure what ED's production/release strategy is (not really sure they are either for that matter). Anyway, having read Wag's May update it seems that F/A18 has been placed right at the back of the list. The post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1743051#post1743051 seems to imply an accelerated development of F15 and SU27 and there is no mention of FA18. This is very different to 'that' video a few months back that did not mention SU27 but did put F15 and FA18 on the same plain. For me this is sad news. I relish the thought of a high fidelity multi role fast mover with SEAD and stand off capability. Dont get me wrong I am not saying F15/SU27 is bad - its just they are not at the top of my excitement list. Perhaps this means that the carrier landings and ground radar are proving to be a major stumbling block for ED. If this is the case thats sad news and probably means that F15/SU27 is probably going to be a late this year/early next year release. Condemning FA18 till at least 2 years from now - assuming no other projects/bugs get in the way. Again, if thats the case this (to me) is sad news. Any word from ED about the likely progression of FA18? -Sharpe