SDsc0rch

but we also wont have a "guy in back" independently keeping a lookout and reporting where los banditos are orrrrrrr.... we'll have omniscient instantly-seeing seeing-through-the-aircraft-frame AI reporting with divine perfection all threats #unrealistic *shrug*

isn't there a "transparency" control in SRS?

for the purposes of IR missiles, i think its been said that DCS only considers afterburner status, mil power, or idle in other words.. it doesn't matter if you're at full burner, or min burner, if you're in burner, its all the same or, if you're at idle, you have a minimum heat signature if you're not at idle, and not in burner, you might as well be at mil power the "resolution" of your heat signature is very "rough" if i recall correctly...

sounds like a nightmare

yeah.. makes sense thx

what happens if you *do* update without disabling in OGME first??

just updated i see wingman porpoising - i am flying straight and level he says he's straight and level - and says i am porpoising anyone else seeing this??

nah its fine - its actually a cool modification of that word - I think I'll use it! lol Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

"restructurate" nice :) Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

deathraptor... da real MVP!lol

it probably just asks each client their LAT and LONG - it takes that info, does its quick calculation and spits out a result your LAT/LONG position is no different if you're in single-player or multiplayer YOU are a sentient human being that uses reason and context to form an assessment of the world and environment you're in - a computer does just that, calculates and computes - it is deterministic and it doesn't do anything more or less than precisely what its told https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul

kindof big picture... i would like for two sides to be able to plan their own missions - instead of a single mission builder, there needs to be a minimum of TWO mission builders

UNDO !!!

typical fleet hornet pilots know all this?!? goddam that's a lot of detail.....

+1

hopefully the C *WILL* get the 9x and JHMCS !! what a strange thing to say why would you say that ??

that is the stated intention

the big bulbous canopy also has an effect on performance

THIS

^finished module

+1

i've wondered for a while now why ED emphasizes "STENNIS" why don't they just say "NIMITZ class carrier" and make the hull # like a "bort number" in the mission editor... able to be set in the mission editor

@ciribob pls check PMs thx

hear! hear! (( and... feel free to interpret that ANY WAY YOU LIKE, @checkgear - i don't care ))

as much as i love the american jets, taking a long view for DCS i think we oughta share the love and get diversity in the DCS stable