Worrazen

Radiation coming into the cockpit or originating in the cockpit, while radar is focused and aimed away from the cockpit is true, but the other stuff such as the screens electronic circuitry electric generators electric converters comm radio transmitters datalink transmitter ECM IFF transmitter (?) ILS transmitter TACAN transmitter that most likely affect the cockpit, additionally the cockpit is an enclosed space which means anything that's inside would also bounce inside of it before going outside, depending on the opening and the properties of the glass and the rest of the materials. RF(EMF) just one thing, then there are magnetic and electric fields produced by electrical circuitry, where AC is involved it's a lot more dirty in terms of electrosmog than in cases of DC, the A/C generator and the APU in A-10C most likely produce more magnetic and electric fields than RF but if you're sitting close by them it's still a burden on the body, the breaker box is quite close on that pic, just behind the seat, for example, althought magnetic and electric fields drop a lot more with distance so it may not be that huge reason to worry, but I'm speculating with this one. Anyway Apple and Samsung already got hit by a lawsuit. https://www.scribd.com/document/422976960/RF-Exposure-Class-Action https://www.rt.com/usa/467274-apple-samsung-cancer-lawsuit/ https://www.ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/5g-emf-hazards-dr-martin-l.-pall-eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf One key study, describing calcium being affected: That's literally telecom PR word for word. So you think that makes any sense, that the reality is digital and not analog, like that it works according to some artificial threshold, that's the same as saying that if you go outside and you'd only feel cold if it's 10 degrees below zero, otherwise you won't, as if you won't freeze if it's -9, that's the logic that's being used, oh it's below the threshold it must be safe. That's very scientific thinking. Kindergarden stuff. Please.

Does it have to be ionizing to be unhealthy? Can you disprove that? This is a huge subject, so I'll just mention bits, let's take a walk over to the ToxicDocs.org and let's see if we can find anything interesting from the old industry docs. I entered the term "Microwave" into the search box: We get a study from the University of Zagreb from ... oh lovely, from 1992. The website has OCRed all the documents in text, but the PDFs are, some typos may be present: The summary of the study: Microwaves possess some mutagenic characteristics typical of chemical mutagens. So if you take this with the basics of a biological organism which requires many types of chemicals to sustain life, these chemicals are not directly used but go through various chemical processes (conversion, transport, binding, signaling), we can by common sense probably conclude that these chemical processes need to happen in a certain way as they were designed to operate in specific circumstances, any effect or change in cirumstances that disrupts these chemical processes is therefore going to be "unhealthy", because what we call health is just referring to a particular condition these chemical processes are in. The intensity and type of the disruption depends on the type of the frequency and it's strength, some frequencies can produce a more damaging effect than others, depending on which bio-chemical process they are affecting, as different frequencies affect different molecules and atoms in different ways such as magnetic effects, mehanical effect (vibration) and disrupting the body's electric signals between in the nervous system, so it gets very complicated. If you affect something crucial and/or using a frequency that is highly resonant with a certain target process, then it can be quickly immobilizing, stunning, or fatal. What is resonance, resonance is like a sweet spot, if some crucial bio-chemical process or a component of it (atom) is hit by this type of frequency the resonance will greately enhance the effect, so even a small (low power) exposure would be dangerous. The disruption effect is relative to both power and frequency at the same time and a sweet-spot frequency can amplify the disruption heavily even if the power (W) stays the same or even decreases in comparison with a non-resonating effect. WIKIPEDIA: In mechanical systems, resonance is a phenomenon that only occurs when the frequency at which a force is periodically applied is equal or nearly equal to one of the natural frequencies of the system on which it acts. This causes the system to oscillate with larger amplitude than when the force is applied at other frequencies. Ionizing radiation simply kills you more quickly as a higher frequency is required to damage DNA, but a lower frequency affecting the chemistry reduces your health slowly and if chronic enough it will kill you passively in a way, through various diseases which will shorten your life, we should equate a shorter lifespan equal to slow murder, or via cancer, as cancer is simply a result the cell being in constant bad circumstances, the cells are being fed what they should not be, they don't like the environment they're in, so they adapt by mutating, the body has to remove mutated cells and cleanup all the time but as more and more cells mutate the body, if it does not have enough resources (nutrition) cannot clean up all the mutated cells in time, the mutated cells left to live longer then build a form with other mutated cells and there you go, cancer. The human body is extremely complicated as theres thousands of chemical processes and it has a cascading effect ofcourse if one thing doesn't work well it'll affect other processes, or at least a group. Given that you are in a sea of various types of RF signals, each of the sources adds a bit of a burden to your body so it's the total sum that is also important, a whole set of frequency specific effects, many processes are disrupted by varying amounts on a daily basis. And this is just RF, what about all the other contaminants from food, water, air, sound, light.

A Law firm may file a Class Action lawsuit due to revelations by Chicago Tribune finding levels over 5 times the limit in their tests. https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2019/08/a-law-firm-eyes-a-class-action-against-apple-and-others-triggered-by-a-chicago-tribune-report-on-radiation-levels-on-smartpho.html ----------------- From earlier this year: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cell-tower-shut-down-some-california-parents-link-to-several-cases-of-childhood-cancer/

https://www.activistpost.com/2019/08/former-u-s-naval-fighter-pilots-blame-radiation-exposure-for-causing-cancer-and-deaths.html https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/08/we-are-dropping-like-flies-ex-fighter-pilots-push-for-earlier-cancer-screenings/ Center For Safer Wireless on Dr. Oz show: MP4 Direct Link My comment: Probably not a good idea to keep connected phones/tablets as a kneeboard replacement while flying.

If you see worse performance most likely it's an unintended effect of the update that would be resolved in time. Except if increase of draw distances has to do with it, certainly, but it would only take a little FPS IMO, and it would not produce an inconsistent effect to only to some specific machines.

At this point I think I'd pay ... but hey, they're coming, some of those unarmed trucks already came and more on the way for sure, so I can't complain :thumbup:

Both of you guys have ofcourse great points but I have to go with this one that overrides the other one in the end for a computer simulator. DCS simulator should stick by the book and not by what "flair" some specific US military agency in a specific US economic condition under a specific management over a specific US president decides to sprinkle on top. HOWEVER unfortunately this clashes with the rule of "simulator simulates reality" and they use only 2 mavericks most of the time ... so if you take a pair of binoculars and be an indepentend observer you see 2 mavericks on each side, you don't see the papers. So I guess it's debatable what default loadout should be but I think the whole thing should be checked and fixed for any artificial limitations that might have been inadvertenly built into DCS, so just because it's uncommon it shouldn't be disallowed in ME to load the airplane to the fullest, another rule should be "if it's possible in reality, then it should be in the simulator". So if it's possible in reality to load tripple mavericks on the pre-tip hardpoint of a wing then so be it :p and let the server admin decide these rules.

That's probably one of the design flaws that a new super warthog would fix, if that happens, these are compromises that shouldn't have happened, you're suppose to fit as much on and still work great, not barely at the limits, I see it everywhere in engineering how machinery is poorly designed for maximum loads, you can see trucks, and things constantly breaking down and all of this drama on the TV "Oh may gawd an excavator has broken down and now John will have to replace the rubber seal" well spfnškfdplasdmsdmk make the friggin thing stronger and up to standard for the conditions!!!! The trucks, the machinery, it's all way below what is required to beat the Australian outback, for example. It's just such a pity how more than half of this worlds effort/time is wasted on using subpar solutions and nobody seems to notice it and keeps chugginn on losing nerves, why can't the freaking truck have a set of hydraulic legs to lift it up from the mud, and more set of legs to step by step go forward enough, one good pair of mehanics could do this as a custom mod on an existing truck in less than 1 month FFS, sometimes I feel like throwing the TV out the window or jump into it and LET ME FIX IT !!!

Go ahead and have it as long as it's optional, but for me even if it is on some super fiber with below 5ms lag, and that's still big for competitive gaming, but mainly IMO google doesn't need to have it's nose up everywhere. Are you going to rely on a cloud service to unlock your car door? I drove into a river with my doors locked - "Oops the car management console service is experiencing connectivity issues, take care guys!" RIP Anyway, Stadia isn't a new idea, remember OnLive.

I hope you guys don't hate me for stating the reality: But different countries have no obligation respecting foreign things, they can see it as finders-keepers, that's what militaries and intelligence agencies do every day, countries steal each other's military-strategic information every milisecond and they don't care how they got it or what "copyright" does it have, there is no law of any kind regulating any of that and they don't want that to be limited obviously, we however simply live right now in a heavily globalized world on the corporate side that's why is realtively easy to enforce copyright in most countries. A different country is the same as if it was extraterrestrials from another galaxy, they don't have to respect your laws, their nearby geographic location is merely a coincidence, however geographic location does come into play as being on the same planet means that one country doing something that affects others such as requiring resources and producing waste, because the resources on this planet are spread out unevenly it's impossible for all countries to be 100% self sufficient, which is yet another thing that adds to the circumstances which lead to conflict. A highly advanced civilization would learn to respect other's copyright, unfortunately Red China doesn't.

So in summary, we need a big whooping ground unit & struture megapack, right? Hehe I think there's a number of core DCS improvements that are needed for that primetime which I am speculating will start to happen 1.5 to 2 years down the line when new CPU HW, Vulkan, VR support, new ATC,the beginning of a dynamic campaing all come together, but these core DCS upgrade are possibly a big deal IMO and I'm a bit worried being completely-free might take them longer and miss that timeframe or price of other modules might unintentionally rise as a side-effect. So I had the idea of some kind of semi-paid method idea (which I think I fully explained on the offtopic forum), a campaign where a larger upgrade would be available to everyone but it would have some kind of pre-release recouperation period before it goes live, which would last like two weeks, in the span of two weeks increased focus and news on that, while the contrubtion would be open via eShop by purchasing some "upgrade bounty" tickets for 1$, 2$, 4$, and that would fill up the bar on the upgrade. This is quite unusual in the market but hey, I think the benefits are I think just positive, it possibly takes the weight off other modules and promotes community engagement with discussions and just the fanfare of the campaing and all the chatter and anticipation around it, kinda like a minigame, a pre-dish before the main dinner. Then I see a few sub-methods of the funding process, either a strict version with a requirement to reach some X goal of funds, publicly represented by percents so that the actual number is hidden and remains confidential, and after that is reached then it would go live for free to everyone or shortly after that. Or, a more relaxed version of optional contribution in the period and it gets released on fixed date for free to everyone and what no matter how much was contributed. There can certainly be many hybrids and other types out there I don't realize, with a bit of fiddling a really cool way could work out for both actually the DCS community actually trusting it ... the fear is that everyone waits for everyone else to contribute so it get's stuck, but a dedicated smaller community I think is better fit than the larger mainstream games, that's why such models aren't used out there, the companies just fear it and don't want to risk it a bit to find a good way. A bit of big-upgrade funding could perhaps pay for 1 or 2 more developers to focus and cover all the niche areas of DCS and niche areas of ME, but I'm already seeing signs of that happening so I'm not complaining. And I thought of this as a solution for the new ATC update conflict, something everyone expects it's core upgrade, but it's so big it can't just be free, well let's just do a paid upgrade but not as a module, still available to everyone, but not everyone needs to pay for it, but it would work out if these community supported core upgrades aren't seen as profit makers, but break evens. That could also be a good initial starting point determining what kind of number should be hidning behind that percentage of the goal completion, the number the accountants determine it's a break even. Might not even need to be some high number, anythings better than nothing kinda, because the lower it is it's easier to fullfill by optional community contribution, in some cases, even break-even number would be large IMO for big upgrades, so maybe some formula lowering that even more on a case by case basis.

Yeah let's not falsely blame what is a proper change, proper visibility and realism is primary, our hardware is falling behind and it's not the game's fault, as mentioned, the CPU industry is in a terrible situation for 5 years and it'll take another year and a half before this stagnating period is over so just sit tight and let them do this properly for the bright times ahead when the proper hardware will become mainstream and it'll work out. AMD's advances are not swinging the tide yet, they're the beginning of the end of this horrible period, it'll take another AMD generation for that transition to become practically noticable to us down here, while big, they just did catchup with Intel this time around, but Intel while late will also be upping up the game in a year or so, the new intel's 10nm is reportedly better than AMD's 7nm, the node names have become marketing terms or they already were but they have significantly diverged between manufacturers (TSMC, globalfoundries, intel inhouse) For example a quote from a reddit disucssion on CPU nodes: But Intel has problems so it's reported they will be late with proper Desktop parts and may even be toning down the desired density. We just need to be patient and ED should focus on the longterm when new PC HW comes coinciding with the DCS core improvement such as Vulkan, updated models (AI), new maps and when these WIP full-fidelity modules are going to be closer to completion, and there's even MAC and new ATC and the beginnings of dynamic campaign, so in 2 years DCS will glow with these goodies, you don't want to be fixing broken pipes to your water heater in those times right. People should take breaks or chores or finish stuff in life right now, stuff that takes weeks or months to do, even if you're not working all day the mental capacity it takes can mess up the experience when you sit down and want to enjoy DCS, overhaul the computer room, do some research on HW to be ahead, all the stuff that would keep you away from DCS later, maybe there are things broken in the house that need fixing, now it's the time to do all that before the prime time, etc. I have literally just now completed my room restructuring, relocated the furniture, desks, and redid the whole setup, moved the PC up on the high closet and boy the room feels much cooler and fresher now with that computer air blowing up in the ceiling.

Been a bit, didn't knew this thread took off, I'll try out with all the advices and see how it goes.

It's a wish came true, I submitted in the whislist like 3 years ago, multiple times AFAIK, so thanks! Yay! Tried it and it worked at least in the unarmed transporter.

I wouldn't go anywhere below 32GB if I were making a new PC today, I started with 16GB over 5 years ago and it was never enough for most of the stuff I do, I don't want to shut down photoshop just to go watch some youtube videos or vice versa, and many types of work sometimes takes a lot longer for me to bother closing it all down so I just keep it open and switch to something else for a bit, so I went with 24GB as RAM isn't cheap, but it's too late now for me to waste on this old machine another 8 GB more, so I'll just wait it out for a new PC. If you guys aren't looking at the correct numbers then the impression will be it uses less than it actually does, Windows Task Manager is a very misleading utility.

We know that due to legal reasons some things are toned down or left unimplemented intentionally, it's not my intention to restart the engine power drama back (I just read old stuff, wasn't part of it at the time) but it does look like the DCS version is more ... let me say sluggish in terms of how it looks on camera in this real life example, if that's a correct observation. I just saw this video on my Youtube dashboard: The particular A10-C part is at timecode 3:11:47 I remember the engine discussion had about not enough power, but I can see here it feels like it can roll faster, pull tighter corners faster, if it has to be that way that's fine. The module may be updated overall too with the cockpit update so maybe something like this would be tuned in future, if there's an artificial barrier maybe it would be relaxed a bit as time passes. So the question is, am I right or it's just an illusion inside the game world and I'm not using correct ingame camera angles and zoom ? PS: I don't have a high end joystick/HOTAS. EDIT: Rewrote some of the parts to make things more coherent and typos fixed. What I've speculated but forgot to mention is that they could be using much less total weight as usual, no missiles or bombs, but I've flown barebone A10-C in DCS as well and still, I will try it again tho.

Yeah more this kind of stuff, audio shouldn't be forgotten! The F2 view switch volume fade-in is the best idea ever that nobody* thought. * = me or seeing anyone mention it on the forum.

Needs a full blown FFmpeg re-integration, if it's still the same, APIs have changed significantly, if not for the features the speed/bugfix/compat is enough of a reason on it's own

I wanted to make a new thread but I guess this one will do to, I'm not sure this is so already in some fashion but here my basic idea goes, I thought of it out of scratch today watching some Mirage and F14 dogfight, I didn't had any hint or anything or any mention about this, so I'm not sure if it's something already talked/planned about. The AI Pilot stamina system should be a part of the overhaul too and the AI difficulty setting should control the total amount of AI pilot stamina that is alloted from the start (translates to endurance, or time of how much dogfight evasion and missile evasion can an AI pilot do in various terms) sustained and accumulated, many things should take stamina level away by varying amounts, basically the more difficult a task for the pilot the more stamina it takes, session flight time, environmental conditions, a normal sunny day return to base should take least stamina, while a stormy weather one should take a bit more because of increases ATC-Pilot negotiation and IFR stuff, missile evasion and dogfight should take the most because most stress, most thinking requirements and high G loads are present. You can't just let the AI to fly all day by refueling from Tanker, pull all those Gs throughout the day, no eat, no sleep, and still evade and do great dogfighting, right!? After the accumulated stamina drops below a threshold, either it's some 10% or implmented using a separate reserve amount, the AI pilot will have to, in a critically low amount, completely flee away and RTB, but there should be improved RTB techniques and types for all AI's, can't just RTB the normal way of flight notrmally in a straight line, but this would be a special one in which either it flies high above or below for minimal visibility and with a mad dash to nearest landing, and if being chased would continue to manouver by some amount to avoid being hit. Sustained stamina is the short-term temporary endurance amount that can recover fully in mid-flight without landing, the AI Pilot shouldn't be able to pull 5Gs for 5hours straight right, in a dogfight after some 20 minutes or more (detemined by skill level selected) he'll have to pull away a bit or do some other lower-G manouver to recover the sustained stamina amounts, while the accumulated stamina level wouldn't be affected, that one always drops down until the end of flight sortie/session. Accumulated stamina depletion would only reset/recharge until the pilot lands/refuels/repair/rearms which I call the end of "flight session", also debatable whether it should require engine shutdown (restart), or more practical just canopy open so in theory the AI Pilot can go take a break and eat while technicians take care of the servicing. We probably don't need to go that far to simulate sleep time. A real-time skill handicap effect: The stamina logic could also apply real-time handicaps on various AI skill levels separately as well, using sustained and accumulated separately. The more stamina depletion, the more loss of skill, but it would be in tiny amounts, not dropping to a lower skill level unit, but just skewing a few % off the top of it, like 5% at most, it wouldn't continue to go down beyond that. But it wouldn't affect stamina levels ofcourse, that would be kinda weird to mess with mathematically and pointless in practice, just the other things besides stamina that are part of skill.

But it's not that gamebreaking tho, as much as it is dramatic, I'm doing training for when the new cockpit update lands, it'll surely be fixed in time for primetime!

Omg ... F2 VIEW AUDIO FADE IN TRANSITION ... THANK! Oh thanks a whole lot I'd never thought of that, nor seen it anywhere, sometimes we can't see the most obvious things. And ofcourse the SysInfo got improved and fixed very visibly, great stuff.

Wow interesting I just got this today for the first time, that was a lovely surprise, I was in a hurry and was pausing and pressing and I guess I held it for too long. And this is a campaign, thank god I was just roaming and waiting for the ground troops to get to the final objective location

Reporting this bug in the same thread. GCAS is oversensetive now, or false positives are triggering it, also tends to fire either too soon, or when doing heavy jerking while like +3000 up, and also fires after recovering from dive.as well. It could be detecting some newly added map objects/models detecting or other static obstacles on ground (trees) and thinking it's closer than it is, and here's another clue after I played the campagin a bit, it did a brief BREAK X when I dropped the GBU-12, so it thinks the nearby bomb is terrain? Might also be the same for other aircraft, I noticed sporadic random triggers, it could be my wingman flying below me when we evaded fire, it could be sensing other flares, who knows. Maybe this was meant for F-18 heh, I find F/A-18 to be a bit less reliable still when it comes to "pull up" detection/prediction. EDIT: happened again , is this part of the bug or normal?: 1. 5500 feet 2. slight dive (10-20) 3. CCRP GBU-12 4. GCAS PULL UP PULL UP exactly when bomb released Maybe I never did this cirumstance and it could be normal? I haven't been diving with CCRP intentionally much.

Well, follow up to that interview

More ground truck updated models, love it!