SDsc0rch

the word "addiction" keeps coming up do you SERIOUSLY think this is an.......... addiction?? addiction has a specific definition and, if its real, shouldn't be taken lightly - it should be treated like an illness or disease but i hardly think people are addicted to VIDEO GAMES --- maybe they make poor choices maybe not even "poor choices" per se, maybe wives/GFs/whatever have either changed or moved on or found someone else ----- and you simply weren't a match any more (hey, if she was neglecting me, i'd be out the door too!) but just because someone leaves you, doesn't mean you're "addicted" ---- heck, ppl call it quits for lots of reasons - and those aren't "addictions"

^^^ +1

to Eagle Dynamics... please please please PLEASE do not listen to silly-villians that do. not. KNOW. what they are commenting on please only regard official documentation, subject matter experts, anecdotal accounts from real-world experiences, published data, and yes even (and this can be dangerous so it should only be used as a last resort when no other source documentation or otherwise credible information are available) "SWAGs" that can be justified with valid assumptions and math/physics to support conclusions NOT the general public who are informed by wikipedia and janes and contractor sales brochures and the nice big picture books that you can buy at barnes & noble for $40 please there are those of us who are interested solely in a SIMULATION not a "game" thank you

pfft! haha

just pulled over off onto a taxiway heard the new refueling sound - i like it open the canopy, and it sounds the same as before with the canopy closed (and "hear like in helmet" selected in the audio options) the sound of refueling is very quiet sounds like fluid going in to a drum ---- nice

looking towards cities/towns seems to be the thing that causes reduced framerates for me also, airports - i notice problems directing my view in the direction of the airfield reducing settings doesn't appear to help me (this is referring to the latest update - from 1.2.16 to 1.5.2)

nope - did not help me i've lowered all of the settings one by one - nothing helps (although, setting visib distance to ultra hurts - as does increasing shadows to the max setting)

hmm.. i'll try that i get a FR hit when i look towards cities yes, changing all sorts of settings - not seeing any improvement --- will try this...

ok! this is some great discussion - i like this input i am in NO WAY an expert on this phenomenon - i made an observation and i'm just trying to help (and hopefully not get in the way!) : ) i agree there is probably a difference between the extreme shimmer (distortion was the term used) due to a jet engine and blur that results from a lens that is out of focus - totally different mechanism - that is a valid point and.. great pic waterman : ) well done! the guys at ED are doing a great job - they're making changes, tweaking and tuning the system - regardless, it never ceases to amaze me what we're able to achieve on a consumer-grade PC these days - and whats more, they'll continue to improve the system! just standby for heavy rolls though when they get all the graphics tweaks on line! fraaaaaame raaaaates!haha

saw a post on youtube just now featuring heat blur here's the idea i had.. heat blur needs to actually be "blurry" - currently, it is not what i see here is just localized movement - i think they are going after "shimmer" (think, a hot road or a flat hot dry lakebed in the desert - look at an object far off in the distance on the horizon, the image will waver - what you are seeing is called "shimmer") note... when depth of field is selected in the options, we can get "blurry" visuals in DCS ---- there is an object in the foreground that is sharp and in focus - but in the distance, that scenery is out of focus or "blurry" since ED has equations or algorithms to make imagery "blurry," i don't see why they don't just put the depth of field "blur" where they're currently putting "shimmer" i would say don't get rid of shimmer altogether - i think what i'm saying is add "blur" to the current area (volume?) that you are adding shimmer i have no idea how much work is behind what i'm recommending - or what kind of FR hit we the end users would see - but hey, i'm just tossing out an idea......

also, the other side of this.... whatabout dropping track (turning out?) before pitbull ---- how do in-game missiles deal with that?? seems to me you get much lower Pk

you want 4k @ 60Hz 4:4:4 chroma and run over DP2 also, how fast the pixels turn on and off (forgot the term) is very important --- i'm seeing "artifacts" if i move my view left and right quickly

yep ---- in the eagle cycle over to the either the CL tank or the ext wing tanks and you can watch as that quantity decreases punch it off as it hits zero

my download is ~3.3GB speed = 2.2MB

maybe they're "allowed to" but nobody is planning it and it was my impression that ED was planning on upgrading all of the fc3 aircraft up to the DCS standard..

yeah - i'd like to know for sure sure would be great to be running a replay/converting to tacview over on one computer - and i can be on my kickass-rig running DCS

don't they usually push updates on fridays?

you know.. that brings up a good point if i want to run a replay from a DCS trackfile so i can get the tacview from it... what would i have to do? would it involve buying any more license(s)??

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

this is odd - sometimes when i switch between TWS and RWS i lose the radar antenna position indicator on the VSD demo > i've got to quickly cycle back and forth between TWS and RWS again to recover - this seems like a bug

when i move the bingo bug from below the fuel level needle to above the fuel level needle, i get the audible bingo alert demo here >> is that correct? doesn't seem like that should be necessary

when i'm online, and i go to the f10 view, i'll click on an airfield to get its info when i'm done, i click the "x" and the info box goes away but when i go back in to f10, the airfield info box is there again see here >>

this is exactly the point i'm making - high-alt high-speed non-maneuvering performance may just be fine if the raw missiles CAN fly the ranges you see published on mfr sales brochures, in Janes, or on wikipedia (ie.. publically available sources) ---- then again, i'm saying ED is doing its job now, there is the kinematics (thrust, aerodynamics, synthetic natural environment..) - there is the guidance logics - and there is the radar modeling - and there is CM and CCM effectiveness (to include target maneuver) ---- all of those go in to missile "performance" (Pk) (can anyone think of any other factors? edit: intercept geometry also has an effect) i'm not saying "we're there" when it comes to any of those - in fact i'm saying we would like to see improvements on all of those areas but all of these factors have an effect on Pk ---- people see "less than desired" success and they conflate all these issues in to one big complaint and dump it at EDs feet and scream at them to "FIX IT!" but i'm also saying.. i think a lot of people might need to adjust their conception of how air combat is prosecuted - and the capabilities and limitations of the equipment involved DCS is *not* ultra-realistic when it comes to these systems ----- it is "realistic" - its on the right path - but its not ULTRA realistic (not yet) you would do well to keep in mind that in all of those publically available sources, ONLY the best ranges are presented - they don't "brag" that their missile can chase down a high speed tail-aspect bandit at two miles down on the deck ------- what they do publish is the supersonic beak-to-beak high-altitude engagement why? BECAUSE BIG NUMBERS SELL! and, that's the *maximum* capability that the other side needs to respect

hey.. don't feel bad -- the mighty USAF has the same problem! ${1} that's real world right there - he's being very frank in this talk (and yeah i know you guys have seen that before...) earlier in the video he mentions a late model mig-21 with a great radar and israeli jammer that "gets him to the merge" -- ie our radars are rendered ineffective to the point that that lil guy can survive to dogfight range look.. you guys are all moaning and complaining that the missiles "don't have range" and you have to get in close to make a shot test it this way (and i've never done this - but i dare you!) --- set up an AI flying straight and level and non-reactive -- go head to head and see how far out your missiles will score a hit ---- note that range if its "BVR," ED is doing its job! seems like what this really is, is disbelief (nisunderstanding?) concerning how effective chaff/flares/jamming are i've got a forum full of silly-villians here who are up in arms about countermeasures being "too" effective and i've got real-deal airdales like the guy in this youtube (and pleeeenty of other sources i've come across - believe you me) making statements that are no where near what y'all are saying who should ED believe?? personally, i like these effective countermeasures - they get me out of scrapes! actually, i don't think the countermeasures go far enough (in fact, i would really like it if we could have escort jammers like EA-6B and EF-111 in DCS) don't take it the wrong way if someone says a lot of people need to calibrate their conception of air warfare you should be happy! ED is working hard at bringing you a REALISTIC simulation of modern air combat 8)

sounds...... complicated DCS = simplified radar model