Vitormouraa

If you don't have an engineer degree, you're out of discussion. Ok. That's why nobody gives you any attention.

That moment when you think there is something wrong with the FM and Yo-Yo comes in and says, NOPE! :D

What are your conclusions though?

I do remember Nick saying something like "This seems to be a bug, we are investigating it" a long time ago. So I assumed it was, in fact, a bug. Looks like I was wrong? Anyway, I'll take down what I said about it. But I'm glad to see that they were able to implement this feature without using scripts (from my understanding). So good job! Now all we have to do is found out why that happens. :D

Looking damn good!

ED doesn't have to prove anything to you. They made the sim and its out there. You are the one saying it's wrong therefore you have to prove it. Not ED. ED said it's correct, so you have to prove that they aren't.

Yes.

And most of the time the exposure is waaaay off, otherwise, you wouldn't see anything, but the afterburner. That's why it looks so whiteish, if you wanted to see the AB plume details such as shock diamonds, everything else in this image would be black.

They should have closed this thread a long time ago when Maverick was proved to be wrong. This thread is pointless, a waste of time. See how much time ED devs spend looking here. Except they don't because the ones saying there is something wrong can't prove their point and they try to use videos, "thinks" and "guesses" instead of proper documentation like other people on this forum do.

This is a USN Hornet, not a Canadian one... Plus you can modify the mission yourself.

56% internal fuel. Which is roughly 5264 kg.

I hope the MAC modules (L-39, F-5E and MiG-21) won't require extra slots in MP, is that the case?

Yeah. Agreed. I'm hoping for general improvements as well. Especially performance. The game looks gorgeous, I love it. But I would like it to perform a bit better especially in MP. Vulcan API sounds like a great option.

Not as bad as I thought, I thought FC4 (MAC now) would bring A-10C, Viggen, Harrier and other FF modules to a lower fidelity package. (Yes, L-39, F-5E, and MiG-21 are FF modules but not a biggie IMHO). A dedicated server is a good news. MAC not so much for me. Might be for other players out there seeking light sim aircraft. And ED didn't put any effort on this it seems, which is great for them because they will make a lot of money. Since all aircraft on that list already exist in DCS. Good for them. I hope this means more FF modules too.

Nice!

Again...

Partially, I live in Brazil as you know, south america. Kind of far away from U.S for example, where most of the servers are hosted. I have a ping in the order of 180ms to 205ms. It's not a big deal at all, never had a single issue with this kind of ping in other games, even higher too. Completely playable (FPS, RPG, racing games etc). But you can definitely see a difference in DCS, how LONGER it takes to load the exact same mission with 40ms and 190ms. Completely different. DCS behaves very weirdly with different pings, and I'm not talking about 40 vs 450ms. The difference isn't that big... I do time out less with 30-50ms though, but it still happens quite often. But a lot less than 190ms (104th Server for example), where it's impossible to connect. And this has nothing to do with my connection, my connection is excellent. I'm just kind of far away from the host. It's more of a DCS thing than my internet connection and pc.

And here we are back to Youtube videos, feelings, and "thinks". It has to be better than that I believe, if you really want to change something in the sim.

I can't even connect to the server most of the times, sometimes I need to wait literally minutes and minutes, and later I see "You were disconnected". No wonder why most people play DCS SP. I've been waiting for improvements for a long time. We have seen many since 1.2, but it definitely needs more. But see, you got more than 50 posts, see now how people are desperately looking for improvements?

Except they don't. This is very standardized. This may vary with a different type of engine. There are exceptions but most of them follow this diagram. Also that's why I said twin shaft engine. Turbojets and Turbofans. We are offtopic here, let's go back to the original topic. :)

+100000

Absolutely awesome!

Roger. But you get it, there are quite a bit of people playing DCS, sometimes not a whole lot but sometimes there are a couple of hundreds of players.

Airflow separation, you're reaching the critical Mach of the wing. At these high speeds, the upper part of the wing, airflow is probably supersonic, creating a shockwave over the wing (although you're not supersonic), which makes the airflow separate from the wing, making the flight control surfaces very ineffective or completely useless. This highly depends on the local Mach number too.

That's because we have OpenBeta and stable, some people use OB some use stable. So it's spread out between these two. Some weeks ago I was talking to NineLine and I showed him a screenshot of the MP list where you could see 700+ people online, the hosters were included but the actual players were in the order of 450-600 players online. But I can see 350+ people online quite easily. DCS is in fact growing and that makes me extremely happy. However, the MP problems are in fact a thing, they do exist and there are a few... I suffer a lot from MP issues and I simply GOT TIRED of complaining and explaining how difficult MP really is. So I just don't post anything. Right now I see 465.