weasel75

I think it was written here before - unfortunately a good simulation of the image-recognition-software would take a considerable amount from your CPU's cycles. So at the moment this is all we get :noexpression: But maybe it is a future project for quad-cores :D .. or a second computer? Hey, I like that idea - a second computer in the LAN, which renders the images for the Shkval and simulates the ABRIS :thumbup:

Have to admit, Frazer with his solo and the Double-Dutch-Display-Team were *really* awesome. Frazer for his control of the aircraft (partially just riding on one AB, doing weird things that close to the ground), and the double-Dutch for their consequent and almost (IMHO) perfect synchronized flying (and soooo close all the time, nice touch also with the smoke-colors). Salute! PS: Ooops, of course all the other teams are beyond anything I could display :) .... a strong competition!

I really enjoy all the tech-talk in this thread, and it truly helps to understand what EW is all about - computational power vs. computational power, algorithms and probability as counter-measures to a RL-thread. To sum it up: in order to be efficient, modern EW-systems draw their own conclusions in order to react to signals in the most optimal way - EW-systems do assumptions about the world around them, a world measured by sensors. A world measured by (limited) sensors leads to a simulated world. For a "simulation" like LOMAC/FC that would mean: try to simulate a computer, that simulates a world based on his sensors (which are simulated), in order to react to threats (which are simulated) that emit simulated radar-impulses. Mhmmm.... so somewhere in this chain some assumptions will be made, some short-cuts taken, etc. ... and then ... well ... then I start thinking ... why all that fuzz, why trying to "really" model such details, if they all can just fall short? Maybe it is easier to just give a feeling of how it would be. After all, even the Mark I - eyeball is just another simulation, a pixel on a monitor is a poor resemblance of the real thing (seen by a real pilot)...... Anyway, thx for all the technical revelations in this thread - it is always a pleasure to read such details - Thank you! :)

The question is: Will Windows 7 support FC2.0? If not, Windows 7 is dead to me .... :music_whistling: Naaa, honestly, the question remains: will FC2.0 run with Windows 7?

Despite the dynamic campaigns in F4.0 - nowadays the sim strikes me as the worst nightmare I could possibly have about long-term relationships. Yes, I know how those switches and knobs work, there are surely hundreds of them (depending on the purpose and situation), and yes, we have done almost everything together (from a head-on to close-combat and spectacular showdowns) .. but you know, after such a long time .... the landscape seems ... less colorful, almost shallow ... just plain and not exciting anymore. And it is true, no plastic surgery (enhancement) will turn those hills/curves into those I saw back then ... a decade ago. I will always remember you for a real and true and deep love ... but ... it is almost 2k + 10 ... so I start looking for other sims and new excitement, I am male after all, I really need new challenges, some new beauty to look at, something that takes my breath away ... again!

I have to admit, that the ww2online's flight-model is far from LOMAC or even FC/BS, but as a MMOSimulation it is highly addictive and will keep your stress-level high ;) .. no AI comes close to that ... from enemy fighters to deadly (and tricky) AAA, flying CAP, bomber-missions or a paratrooper-transporter, strafing (human-player controlled) ground-troops and transporters, bombing hidden tanks with some human FAC-help, sinking ships, having (a) human gunner(s), trying to reach friendly lines after taking damage, etc.pp. - it is always a unique experience. .. compared to that experience, the world in BS looks really dead, sterile and clean :-(

Well, especially with "open" (in the sense of extensions, MODs, etc) games this is not entirely true. The initial development of a solid engine is more expensive than adding new variations of vehicles and soldiers to the game. A game like "Dragon Rising" could easily result in tons of AddOn/extensions. This starts from vehicles and infantery (i.e. playing as PLA) and ends on complete new terrain-types and islands. With the current state of this game, I guess nobody will buy any Add-On for it.

I am afraid the "What's My IP" - IP is not that behind the router - you just got the internet-valid-IP of your router! Instead, you will have to use your computer's LAN-IP! http://compnetworking.about.com/od/findingipaddresses/f/whatsmyipaddr.htm You can always ask the cmd-box - ipconfig is your friend there. ... or just read the above link ;) Good luck!

Thx for the Falcon Patrol ;-) .. man, back then this was almost a sim. But to be honest - starting from LucasArts' Their finest hour, over Flight of the Intruder and Falcon 4.0 to nowadays - *ten* years past the Falcon ........ no matter how much better the graphics became, the "synthetic" feeling remains. Immersion went up a bit with TrackIR, but the worlds we are flying in are still sterile and "dead". And therefor I think, that MMOSims are the way to go. For me - the best adrenaline-rush I ever had in a "sim"-style game was with ww2online (followed by IL-2 enjoyed in a squad) flying Stukas and Bf-110 .. and that graphic does really suck compared to FC, BS, FSX and ARMA (I&II). Salute! PS: Don't get me wrong, since SU-27 Flanker I love the series for the technical approach and the detailed sim of the individual planes ... and after FC + BS the A-10 will be on my harddrive too :)

Soll aber nicht heissen, dass ich den AH/MH-6 nicht auch gerne fliegen würde ;) ... gibbet aber zum Glück in ArmA :D

Warum sich das Militär für solch eine Waffenplattform entscheiden sollte? Und warum so ein hohes maximales Abflug-Gewicht? Warum nicht agiler? Gründe: Panzerung, erhöhte Überlebenschancen für Piloten (Schleudersitz) und vor allem: Bewaffnung (bis zu 2000kg). Sorry, der Bo-105 ist nicht gerade *die* Allzweckwaffe auf dem Schlachtfeld, sondern eine als spezialisierte Panzerabwehr eingesetzte fliegende Plattform. Vergleicht man die Flexibilität (der Waffensysteme, des Einsatzgebietes, etc) mit dem eines Ka-50, so schneidet der Bo-105 echt bescheiden ab.... Fazit: der Vergleich hinkt wohl ein bissel .. sonst wäre auch der betagte MD-500 im Vergleich zum Ka-50 ne echt starke Konkurrenz ;)

Sorry, falls ich damit störe: aber *warum*??? Russisch wäre doch konsequenter, oder?! ;) Nee Scherz .. hoffe ja auch, dass irgendwann der sprach-relevante Content für alle Spieler frei austauschbar herausgegeben wird (nach LockOn ist mensch ja auch einfach gewohnt, alle Cockpit-Stimmen auf Russisch zu hören :thumbup: ) .... gerade wenn mensch in einem mehrsprachigen Squadran fliegt, ist *eine* Sprache im Spiel (English) dann doch deutlich angenehmer :)

I don't know - why would this poll be bad? At the moment it only shows, what ED already anticipated (or seemed to)! So let us enjoy the close advantage for the A-10C, cause this will be next ... and AH-64 is not too far up the road .. maybe not *the* next .. but ... well .. still close .... ;)

Then you might want to check that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Combat_Simulator ;) Over the last three days a lot has changed and some helpful WikiGnome already took care of my grammar and typos... but there are still some strange formulations (e.g. TrackIR and free-look within the cockpit in order to see and reach all switches)... and it got ad-tagged just before I started modifying it ... hopefully it is now in a better shape. Any input/fixes welcome! ... things you do for your favourite helicopter-sim ;)

Mhmm.. you are truly eager :) But now I am in the dilemma - if the law is based on the server's location .. then the German law does not apply. Nice. But what law does apply? US-law for the Florida-location? Netherlands? South-Korea? All of them, just to be sure? Naa.. and then there is a "Wikimedia Deutschland – Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V." ... and that was founded in Germany. And I guess the (lame) German law applies for them .... and yes, they are independent from the US-foundation..... :( .. but then ... they just have "www.wikipedia.de" ... ha! So the german law does not apply to that lame redirect?! BUT - what happens when they want to release a wikipedia-DVD in Germany? For any publication in that country the local law would apply, wouldn't it?! Wow, my head is spinning. Me is sad now. Where is my cookie? :helpsmilie: PS: I just hope that TFC finds some cool way to allow publishing screenshots.... :mad: .. for all of us! :thumbup: PPS: Still waiting for a response .. will check *then*, what it is (not) good for ;)

Sure!! I fully understand the "wtf, why buttons with no effect" - reasoning ... but I understand that as fan of flight-simulators. Imagine someone with (almost) no background picking up the box! IMHO there is a huge psychological difference between "all" and "almost all" (yes, "almost" is a stretchy word, especially when it comes from ads and "promises" made by PR) ... And just that was my point: switches are a cheap effect (at least compared to some other stuff): a click-sound and an additional button (there are plenty of those already!)... and off you go with a "fully interactive cockpit, modeled after the real Ka-50's cockpit, with all the buttons in it" ;) Anyway, just me "thinking" .... :lol:

And this discussion is going ..... well ..... nowhere?! Please PM each other ;) Hehe ... but in the meantime I jump in :P Just for PR-reasons (and just an idea): can *all* switches in the cockpit be made interactive/click-able?! ... Yes, it sounds really stupid, but it is so much clearer to state: "all switches are fully interactive and are modeled after the real cockpit". It sounds way weaker if one has to state that "almost all" switches are modeled/interactive :-( ... just an idea .. would look much better at the box-text and would be true for the Ka-50 at least ... or does the virtual pilot really feels the difference about the (non)ventilated cockpit??! ;)

After reviewing all possible copyrights for images in the de.wikipedia ... I give up ... there is no such thing as a "Fair Use" in the German law (oh wonder!). Dang! Such a strong Wikipedia-community, and then bound by such tight copyright-restrictions ... :cry: .... so I wait :music_whistling: for any sign from TFC and will let you know .. maybe it is interesting and applies to multiple European countries -_-

While 72% is a truly disappointing score - at least *some* mag reviewed the sim - after all it needed a fan of the genre to know anything about the release. It is a pain, how much attention HAWX got (okay, they had UBI-PR running and a demo (hint, hint ;) )) ... compared to one of the very few realistic simulators in 2008 and 2009. But .. there is a bright side: at least people might have noticed, that there is a new ultra-realistic flight-simulation out there ;) BTW - "EKRAN beachten" ... or was that voice just in my head/mind? It was German, wasn't it? (but true, radio-chatter is in English, tutorials are in English, ... but then again, fully translated manuals, labels in German ...)

Yes, I am painfully aware of that ... every country having it's own wicked copyright-laws ... and so either each wiki-branch has to have it's own pictures (if! there is something close to the "Fair Use"), or one tries to get the pictures united under the GFDL .. but that would require some new license agreement from TFC ... :music_whistling: .. in the meantime I will upload some downsized screenshot for the en.wikipedia, but this is absolutely no help for my initial problem: to start a "beautiful" and well documented article in the german wikipedia - with just some (at least ONE) screenshot in it .... :mad:

Thanks, I considered that, but AFAIU the "Fair Use" can only be applied to the United States, as only their copyright law states "Fair Use". So the picture/screenshot could not be legally published in e.g. Europe.... I guess. Mhmm.. one could start to think, that copyrights are a bad thing ;)

Just to keep anyone interested updated: the contacts @TFC are very polite, active and helpful, and there might be a solution allowing the wikipedia-publication of screenshots taken within DCS. While the topic itself gets more complicated, TFC wrote that they might work on the license agreement for the next module/release to put the publications of fan-made screenshots (and videos?!) on a written and solid/legal base. It is sure, that it is absolutely not in there mind/interest to hinder the non-commercial publication of screenshots, but, as said before, things are getting weird when someone might sell those screenshots (as it happens with Wikipedia-DVDs, where those screenshots would be included).

I voted for the A-10C, because the original version in LOMAC felt way too arcade. I want the "real" thing ;) And yes, two people in one helicopter would be a blast, but then again, IMHO the AI for ground-troops would need some update first (throwing smoke, evading, spreading out, ..) and for more chopper-action I'd prefer some new trees (with collision!) and more detailed ground-features .. call me spoiled. I guess those "fixes"/updates will not be around very soon ... so lets play with fixed wings while the underlaying engine (which originally was designed for planes and not for choppers) can get some (more) attention :thumbup:

I am interested in such a "real-life"-file!! Can someone send me such a file or put it into public web-space? :helpsmilie: TIA! PS: I love (to write) log-tools and log-analyzers, but since I am behind I firewall (which I have no control-access to) I can not host games :(

OMG .... there is finally the proof - with enough thrust, even ... oh wait, the F4 won that challenge ;)