Renato71

Fantastic work! Excellent choice or terrain. Map is beautiful, terrain is quite diverse :) Could you please post few pics of low level flying trough canyons :)

Yup, people are getting lazier by the day. Why bother doing some reasearch? I agree with you...

Its all about attitude, and it will be hard to change that. I found out that that patient approach can be very productive. Online, on HL only, I ignore all chat, apart from salutes and comms from people I know. Offline, especially on our forum, I always go one extra step to explain. This produces interesting effect - those that are NOT interested into serious flying and are looking for a flying version of Wolfenstein, quickly give up when they realize the level of complexity. Or, they are simply ashamed of how little they want to learn, and they leave for good. On the other hand, some people take a deep breath and really try to learn something in light of the support they receive. If someone says "I give up", I wanna know why? I do not let them go until they admit that they are not looking for a game like this. Thats the way people are. Just look at the traffic. Dunno about your cities, but here its horrible how... erm.. simple-minded drivers can be. I will never stop to wander how it is possible they they were able to get their driving license, and why in a Gods name the car manufacturer allowed such dumbs to drive their cars? And, if you cannot regulate that, how do you expect to regulate online flying? At this moment, there is no setting like "block noobs" or "min number of flying hours needed to connect". And even if there were, once upon a time we were all noobs with no flying hours. You need patience. Like, here is another example - I was TK'ed with R-73 while flying Su-25T in a mission where I was the only one flying Su-25T. Yes, the evil table with list of fliers was not telling the truth! It showed up only 6 out of 6 fliers! Conspiracy!

Just the other day there was a guy on 4c at HL with Q: "I can fire AMRAAM, but how do you lock in BVR?".... That produced some lenghty laughter on our TS :megalol: Sometimes, one step from manual Content is one step too much.

:megalol: I agree. So, what does "early" cover?

Looking forward to participate:) Thanks for your effort =FV=MAD!

Among other things :smilewink: A-10 lovers are taking this quite hot-headed, not giving any space to the option that others may be well informed, reading books since the times before the Internet (yes, there were such times), but they just do not care about it. I have no intention to buy, fly, google or wiki about A-10. I know what is to know, I just don't care about it. I care/want Su-17 and Mi-24, or any other European plane/helicopter. I'll save my money for that :)

Yeah! We want that mod! Possible flayble :D

A-10A, A-10C, A-10UNGH.... whats the difference? If there would be Su-17 or Mi-24, I' would buy every version :) And, unlike A-10XYZ, there are other aircraft that are/were operational in more then one country. Thats why I am happy about FC2. Although it features some oddities, it gives you more fun - and choice - for the same price :)

I would be very happy to see true support for localizations, unlike in DCS where you can do it, but your are on your own as how to "crack the code" and enable your localization. There are delays on account of langs that I'm not going to use. Let them do it at their own pace, like on Linux localizations. Whats the harm in that :) As for DCS modules, its weird to bother with A-10 module while you will have A-10 with FC2, no? I'm interested in two-seater helicopters only. Apache will do fine until Mi-24, I do not care about US planes much. European, yes :D

Not a phenomenon, just a real deal :) There are fuel pumps, but their feeding is gravity dependent - openings are at the bottom of the tanks, or fuel pipes have openings near the bottom of the tanks. On Su-25/25T there is a small tank, so called "negative g tank", that provides fuel (to the fuel pumps) for a limited period of time. Fuel from the underwing or any external tanks is pumped out, but pipes lead to the bottom of the tanks, meaning that it is not possible to pump the fuel out of them if aircraft is under negative G (inverted, flaying on back). Such feature is present on most of the aircraft as it is very hard to design simple "all G" fuel feeding, and in most cases it is not needed anyway. At least over longer periods of time :)

Well, such thing occurred to me last night, long after the game. I have to wait until tonite to test it :) I'll post results.

Hi all, A friend of mine has older PC and he has problems when tacview is enabled. But, when we play in our national league system (he can serve OK for 1-on-1), I was wandering is there a way that he can export tacview, but it will not created a file at his PC? Only at clients PC. Is it enough to edit tacview.lua and comment out following line: -- Create a new log file for each mission self.AcmiFile=io.open("./Temp/Tacview-"..os.date("%Y%m%d-%H%M%S")..".txt.acmi","w"); Thanks in advance

Well, this is "3D Model" section - and it should do just fine. Only that there is no single topic named "3D tutorial" that contains links to various sections (tutorials for each segment of work). So you have to search on your own, and after a dozen pages I definitely get lost. One says this, another says that, try to keep track of that... I know there are many tutorials for 3Dmax around the web, but it would be nice to see a single thread about making a Snoopy's flying doghouse or whatever, without much OT discussions and distracting questions until the END of the description. That way I could transform doghouse into a plane, and bother other with polishing up the work, not with the complete task. I've made few tutorials for my gang on various addons and FC features, but I've made them from old forum threads. Pruned, cleaned, and so on, without any distracting discussion. And I update them from time to time when a previously unattended problem occurs. You know, fill in the blanks. But, I cannot do that with 3D tutorial, as I do not know what is important, and what is outdated or incorrect.

For start, it would be nice if each modeler could explain only one step in his/hers work. Ten modelers - ten steps and almost everything can be covered without much additional work. Such tutorials should be collected into one topic. Searching through various topics here can produce various off-topic results :(

It can, and without any problems. See here for some additional tweaks. Also, when you install drivers, if there aren't any for 2k3, try to install drives for XP.

It would be great if anyone could be so kind to share their knowledge on stats, not just to use words like "its easy if you know how". I do not understand why some people can share their work with skins and other stuff, but stats are guarded like some treasure. There were some instructions here, but I was not able to make it work. I got an offer to host my stats on their webpage, but thats not my goal.

What about payloads? I hate the way it is done in DCS, without any option to check existing payload (need to load the mission) or to create your own payload. Most mission creators do not understand what payload is the best one for the ground attack a/c, like they never try to test it in MP.

(sorry for late reply) Is there any difference when trying to lock a blinking target at 20, 50 and 100 km?

But, ain't that the purpose of real ECM?

I have not spent much time in a2a combat, so I do not have much online experience with ECM blinkers, but something just occured to me when I read sobek's post: Now, if we all agree that: 1. no flightsim is simulating ECM properly/realistically, and 2. ECM spamming (E-E-E-E-E-E-E) is disrupting a lock in BVR ... then ECM blinking is in a fact the most realistic thing that you can have in FC, right? I mean, the way ECM is working in FC, it only (a) reduces lock range and (b) enables HOJ. And we all agree that "real ECM does more than that". So? Whats the problem with ECM blinking?

(On more clever SAM...) I see, thats it fine, but still sounds like poor mans choice in comparison to some proper AI logic. For example, if you set up something like 20 Iglas, and additional 20 Strela-10, and 20 Shilkas, and 20 Tuguskas, and 20 Tors, I think it will be easier to set their individual skills then to set up 100 triggers zones on top of all work? Thats a pitty. Anti-shipping is a great fun, and since there is so big sea area on the map, it is sad that naval forces are not used to their... erm... well... at least up to some potential.

Truth to be told, its more like "porting FC planes to DCS environment", then "significant FC upgrade", no? One way or another, glad to see it happen. Any chance to fix AI for SAMs? Like, making them more sneaky, instead of triggerhappy? Any chance to see fixed damage models for ships (and vehicles if not of a big trouble) ? It would be nice to be able to destroy individual systems on ship, like radar, AAA, SAM, engines,... and let the rest be in working state. Oh, and lets make some use of 76mm guns on ships against aircraft :)

Immediately after you upgrade my bank account to more digits. :gun_sniper: Yes, indeed! People with more money should enjoy more then people with less, regardless that all of them paid the same amount for the same product. ED makes money out of selling the sim to high-end users only. All 10 of you :P