Malleus

No it didn't make it much better. I've tweaked the hell out of those settings already. The only way to gain significant fps is to set the scenery to low, but it pretty much removes all the objects from the terrain and that's ... no deal. :)

By the way, if the Ka-50 module is called 'DCS: Black Shark', then the Mi-24 module will have to be called 'DCS: Crocodile'.:D

Helo pilots will be on another server (if they know what's good for them). :)

Holy sh**!!!:shocking: Awesome! :thumbup::thumbup:

Yeah, sure. That's why they called it the 'flying tank'.:noexpression:

Sundowner, slow down, you're making a lot of Hind fans depressed here. :) Besides, the Mi-24 is as much a worthy candidate for a preferred combat helicopter as the Ka-50 (the DCS version, at least - I noticed a lot of people became fans of the heli already :) ). One could argue about them being good designs or not, but both are important pieces of (heli) history. ;)

I thought it was designed for that (or maybe it was the only working combat technique with this construction) - that it flies and attacks as a fixed wing aircraft (fly forward towards the target, unleash missiles or drop bombs, then turn away or fly over), but it takes off and lands like a helicopter. A VTOL SU-25. :)

I have a P4 3,0GHz CPU, 2 GB RAM, x1950pro 512MB AGP, I play at 1024x768 2xAA 4xAF, and I have an average fps of 15-20. Sometimes it goes up to 30-40, but sometimes it drops seriously. Taking off with the SU-25T from Novorossiysk airport is around 10 fps. It's much better with the other planes though. But I refuse to turn off any more eye candy, it's playable after all, and I love the way it looks. Besides, most graphical setting doesn't improve fps as much as to make it worth turning them off (like full shadows, all lights, advanced fog, high scenes, high textures, heat blur) - it's my CPU that holds it back after all, not my graphic card. I have water on medium and effects on low, though.

Yes, I played that, though I was a big noob back then, I played with minimum realism. :) If you're looking for flyable Hind, you may want to keep an eye on Enemy Engaged: Commanche Hokum, there's a Hind addon in the works for it. Btw, Feuerfalke, Hind was made by DI (Digital Integration), not DID (Digital Image Design, made TFX/EF2000/TAW).

:music_whistling:

Not really a problem (since the mod works fine), but when install the mod with the newest ModMan, it's status is yellow, but when I check the file list, I don't see any conflicting or missing files - but as I said, the mod itself works fine. :) Just curious what could be the problem.

Pretty awesome!:thumbup:

They're in different league. I think Crysis needs strong video performance, OTOH DCS:BS sounds like more of a CPU killer. On my rig (P4 3,0GHz, 2GB RAM, x1950pro AGP) LOFC (Su-25T) gives about the same performance as Crysis, both on Med-High graphics settings. Obviously, Crysis is more demanding graphically, while LOFC would need even more CPU power than I have. Which means that BS most likely won't be playable mostly because of the CPU.

Hi! I encountered a strange performance problem. When I turn on the Skhval or switch to Maverick, the game freezes for a few seconds (5-10 seconds) and then "unfreezes" and goes on as if nothing had happened. But during the freeze, the simulation is not stopped, time passes, but I can't control the plane or anything for that 5-10 seconds. Mildly annoying. This is not always present though. My rig is P4 3,0 GHz, 2GB RAM. LOFC graphics is set to a custom setup, but it is mostly "high", 1024x768. With my old video card, an X1600pro 512MB AGP, this problem was present. When I switched to a new card, an X1950pro 512MB AGP, it was fine, no pauses - however when I switched the resolution to 1280x1024, the problem appeared again. Well, any tips/ideas on this one? Anyone else having this? Should I downgrade some graphics settings, or can it be fixed somehow else?

I got the impression that the new forum colors have something to do with this:

Wow. The new DCS logo, with those small icons are cool, but I like the old forum colors better.

It was some time ago, but I thought I'll report here that after an intense email duel with starforce support, they gave me a code that apparently fixed the problem. The game started up with that code and now recognises the disk. I have no idea what the actual problem was, and they did not explain either. But it's fixed now anyway.

I actually thought about that myself, but it didn't work. The disc is still not recognised.

Hi! So I've got myself a copy of Lock On Gold a week ago (US version), and I installed it, patched it to 1.12, and was able to activate it via CD check. It played fine and all, until now. A week has passed since the first activation, so the program asked for another CD check, but this time, it refuses to recognise the disk as "licensed". I don't think it's one of the faulty disks, because the CD check went fine when I activated the first time. So ... what's going on here? Any suggestions, guesses, or something? Thnx.

That was exactly what I did when playing with labels off. And it worked, I admit. But Weta43 is also right - SA is worse on a PC monitor than in RL, even if in LO ground objects can be spotted from atrociously far away. I can't really decide, it works without labels, but I'm just tired of pixel hunting ground units. Anyway, for labels, Tekateka's solution looks good, although I think I'll add the same color for both sides (thanks for the tip, Weta43).

Aw, geez, I knew I missed something.:doh: That kinda looks like what I'm looking for, thanks. :)

Just an idea. IMO I think there should be a realistic label option, which would be something like this: -nothing appears unless the object is within visual range -when in visual range, a dot, or something like that appears -when it gets close enough that it would be realistically possible to visually identify it, then it displays the type of the object (and not the exact type, just the basic model name, like "M-113" for all vehicles with the same chassis) -when it gets closer, or is acquired by Skhval, a more exact description appears (like "M-163 Vulcan") -also, distance should be only a rough estimate (like ~5km ~10km (less accurate when farther, more accurate when closer) or whatever would be possible to guess by a pilot) I tried some label mods for LOFC, but they're just workarounds for the existing system - which is either "labels off" (makes the thing harder, obviously), and "labels on" (feels like cheating).

No way man, they're awesome. :) Just modify the text.

LOL!

I also suggest you watch the movie "EDGE".