Hiromachi

Time to look for or make alternative.

Dolphin recently posted in a few threads regarding bug fixes. And yes, there is sound update in development as indicated in April's update.

Loners ? Dude, literally at the hours I fly there are constant dogfights exploding over ships and Anapa city and in either case its fueled by folks taking off from nearest airbase which is like a couple miles away. You cant fix low numbers. Not that way. But you can mess greater numbers (20+) big time. And I've been seeing 20+ flying on Friday and weekends. For me entire mission is already claustrophobic and designed to appeal to scoreboard fighters, without any history or realism taken into consideration. I'm not sure why people choose to fly game that aims to be the most realistic product in the market in least realistic scenarios, where entire mission is reduced to a mere arena like in Wt, WoWP or older games.

Closer ? How much closer you want when half of the time people fight over Anapa or Novo already ? This server is one huge furball without logic or sense. If anything I'd vote for further apart and with more targets spread around, to actually make it at least partially realisitc. But in any case, clouds are at times affecting my performance and causing FPS drops. If it was possible to tune them down a bit, I think that would help.

Now let's hope for Vulkan in DCS :)

https://www.amd.com/en/products/specifications/processors/11781,11756,11761,11766,11771 So yeah, I'm not sure I'll even wait for reviews and might just pick that 12c/24t monster as soon as its available. 499 $ is just as much as Core i9 9900k, but offers a lot more.

Ohh, well than, they keep rehashing same arch and node. Isnt it like 14++++ nm now ?

Apparently a 10 nm SKU.

Well, there are leaks before that: And simple comparison with current gen cpu with similar ram and settings: http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/13241660?baseline=13267824 indicates about 10+ % IPC increase. So if any other leaks are true and those chips are close to 4.5 to 4.7 Ghz, I think Ill be swapping my 2700X as soon as they drop on market.

Yes, technical documentation and translation of it.

But it was acknowledged in our Autumn 2018 update already, with added statement that we're collecting data on it.

Armament manual should indicate typical loadouts. Currently there are specific Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground ammunition loadouts, but if there are any other options you are aware of, I'm sure we could try to include them.

Website was recently under maintnance and something may still be not functional, but I can access the article, hmmm ?

No worries. Ultimately it just boils down to the fact that submitted fixes not always make it to the released patch package. For instance, this patch that should contain our fixes was wraped up a week prior to release to OB, so any fixes even a mere day after wraping, didnt make it.

That's not something we can change. ED would have to do that.

Sigh, thats correct cause: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3912647&postcount=45

None of the fixes indicated above made it to the patch. Unfortunately. Please, await another patch.

Can you state which game version that is and attach your logs please ?

Will i16 count as half kill or quarter of the kill ? Because I'm not sure what to think about that. It can seriously affect statistics which later impact your events.

Picked some documentation today :)

Technically yes, there are even pictures of it on display: Portman is right though, it was a way to move around restrictions imposed on MiG-21 users. There was no possiblity to modify wings of MiG-21PF or PFM due to those restrictions, so the way around it, to increase missile load, was to introduce such racks. However since MiG-21bis had more pylons and could carry up to six R-60 missiles, it made little sense to equip units with older R-3S missile and such pylons. Based on the above it seems to be technically possible, but operationally it was pointless. I'm going to pick some documentation for it and couple other things in the upcoming days, and if there are no technical issues preventing use of it, I think it may be a an acceptable addition worth of writing a suggestion.

No, I have forwarded your question, though fairly late. I'm sorry for not doing it earlier, but I've been focusing on ASP and also recently reported troubles with SPS (BLC), so I've missed it. Once I will get a reply, I will send it to you.

AH-1 Cobra would be nice to fly along Huey. And Gulf of Tonkin map.

There is a fantastic read on that topic which I'll attachat to the post so you all can benefit from reading it. All in all, MostlyHarmless is right as F-8J received mixed reviews, but some of the complains are related more to Vietnam War conditions rather than inherent aircraft flaws: There seems to be a lot of confusion because of the way it was operated and conditions it was used. Radar usage complains over Vietnam may very well be reapplied to F4s, since both types had to rely on close combat rather than any attempts of BVR (of which only F4 was really capable with Sparrow missile). In general air combat over Nam was based a lot on visual identification: I just think F-8J is going to be a blast. an-examination-of-the-f-8-crusader-through-archival-sources.pdf

Just to post some cool stuff, I've been going through a new book which indicates, that in order to utilize French missiles, F-8E had to be upgraded with Magnavox AN/APQ-104 radar and AN/AWG-4 Fire Control System. Compared to F-8J, which is equipped with AN/APQ-124 or AN/APQ-124A radar and same Fire Control System, it seems to me that on a hardware level, there should be no issue with using those R.530 on F-8J either ?