kk0425

Same here; EVGA 780 GTX 3 GB version for about the same price. It should arrive in the mail tomorrow. I'll let you guys know how much better it is over a 570.

All I can say is wow. I knew B-17 crews had guts but this one really shows it.

I remember one instance where I got a - rep just for stating an unbiased fact about the F-35. But I agree with the OP. I don't really see the point in the rep system. I've seen users with high rep being generally unhelpful and trollish, and users with low rep with good attitudes.

Fragmentation isn't modeled. CBU-87 and 103s are usually a waste of a hard point right now unless you set the detonation altitude so low that it won't hit more than a couple vehicles anyway, in which case might as well just bring a 97 or 105. For infantry, I'll just use mk-82s since They're lighter and I can carry more, plus the damage radius is far enough out to inflict serious damage to a relatively spread out group of them.

Understood that missiles are still WIP. But performance is certainly worse than before patch 3. As far is gimbals go, that makes sense, but it still stands to reason that the missile should not be tracking at that much of an extreme angle since there should be no radar beam for it to guide on anymore. I knew it couldn't track at that much of an offset before this patch.

I think the 27s got buffed in speed and the 120Cs seem to eat chaff since the newest patch. Maybe it's just me since I don't play FC3 much anymore, but when I tried with this patch I couldn't hit a Su-27 from 15nm with a 120c at 25,000 ft. Oh and it seems like radar gimbals from the Su-27 is too high. The missile was still guiding onto me even when the Su-27 was nearly at a 90 degree angle. The white puff is me less than a second from impact. I watched the track several times to make sure I didn't do anything dumb like leave my jammer on.

I would have thought rockets would be more damaging. I don't really fly the mustang much and when I do, it's just for scenery.

*Braces for impending doom*

Why?

Believe it or not but developing an AFM for one fighter helps with all the rest. Once they get a basic framework they can adjust it to fit a different plane with similar performance. There was an interview on the AFM with the developers and if anybody is interested here it is.

I wouldn't say it's a simple fix. There are many issues with implementing fragmentation, the biggest one being the actual fragments themselves. For a truly realistic simulation each fragment would have to be spawned from the impact point and each one would need it's speed, trajectory, and damage calculated in real time. If we ever get vehicles and infantry with more accurate systems in place, then where the fragment hits would also need to be calculated. This isn't really possible with the current engine since we would get CBU-87 type slow downs whenever a bomb or rocket exploded. Nothing has been said so I wouldn't expect it, but hopefully EDGE will be able to solve some of those issues. At the very least a basic fragmentation module would be nice, even if it wasn't really that accurate to real life. I would at least feel like rockets would be useful other than for WP. Mk-82s are okay since I save those for softer targets for now, but it would be nice to be able to drop them next to a tank and disable it.

So I'm terribly confused with this. I'm reading in this thread that some users download a newer version that works with 64 bit applications but that version is older than the stable one which doesn't work with 64 bit apps? Also there is an alpha release that's supposed to work with 64 bit programs, and I don't know which version to use anymore.

I think the main issues were how realistic they could model it and pvp balance and that turned a lot of people off. Neither were good arguments against it since not even the A-10C is 100% realistic and pvp balance is just a dumb argument. Most DCS players play offline and it's up the mission creator to add them anyway. Besides, when has a war been balanced? Either way, I'll be buying it when it's released. DCS needs some highly detailed 4th and 5th gen fighters.

Even though OP's question was answered I'm getting a slightly similar bug that some others in this thread are getting. I sometimes have to push the throttles past the cut off detent several times to get the engines started and here's the strange part, this bug only happens when I have my home built electrical panel plugged in too. But it seems to only affect the throttles. Everything else works correctly, aside from maybe making the game less stable too, but that's something I can't confirm at this time.

That gives me some nasty ideas.

Yeah, that's about all I've got. The high poly count with the different lighting sources is probably causing it in the highly detailed cockpits. But no, I don't see any difference. I'm guessing optimization is low on ED's priority list right now since EDGE will be released soon. No idea if it will help with cockpit rendering performance but we can only hope right now.

Heh, this version reminds me of how bad Windows ME was. Hopefully future versions will be more stable. I'm thinking the same as sith in that ED is simply building up DCS to be something great but this is all new territory for everybody.

Not sure why lights affect you so much. I don't notice a difference with lights on or off. Can only guess is has something to do with dynamic shadows, but if you already had those turned off then I have no idea.

Currently there is a bug with the radios. More info can be found here. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=112739 And here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=112786

I have 8 GB and it runs fine for me. Could you provide a link or discussion saying that 8 GB isn't enough, because I haven't read that anywhere. Looking at OP's set up I would guess it's the GPU, being a 555M I would guess his FPS drop would be due to his weaker GPU. My rig is a Phenom II X4 965 BE, 8 GB RAM, EVGA factory OC'ed 570 GTX, and a Samsung 840 pro SSD. I typically get about 40-60 FPS depending on how many objects I'm looking at in the mission.

I played a mission where AC/DC's Thunderstruck played once you finished.

M means that it is masked and unable to fire the laser if I remember correctly. The L needs to be flashing then you know it's on.

I thought I read somewhere by one of the testers/moderators that the heat signature has 3 different values. Idle, somewhere in the middle, and afterburner. Could be wrong though.

Hopefully this. I remember one time I had 3 or 4 gbu-12s left and the JTAC cleared me in for a gun run and I'm just thinking to myself, "I know I'm going to get shot down by a MANPAD but here goes anyway." Sure enough, I get close to the trucks ready to fire the cannon when my MWS goes off. I start dumping flares and dodge the first one, but the second and third caught me. Edit: And I've found a way to defeat them most of the time. Each time I was launched at (and survived) I was between 5,000 and 10,000 ft msl. The CMS program I use is 1 flare every .45 seconds for 5 cycles while beaming it. As soon as I detect the launch I do a split S which seems to make the missile bite the flares almost every time, and if it doesn't, there's a good chance I'll make it overshoot. Bad news is that for each attempt, I knew exactly where it was coming from so I could watch for the puff of smoke and make sure it was on either my 3 or 9 o'clock. Also I wasn't carrying any ordinance aside from guns and was only at 60% fuel.

Maybe this issue is related? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=112739