firmek

+1. Get the i5, and invest the saved money in a better GPU or SSD. I don't get all of the advices for CPU. i5 and 1070 will run much better than i7 and 1060. When it comes for 3D games a good, modern CPU and the best GPU as budget allows will always give better results then a worse GPU and the best CPU.

The map itself doesn’t mean much if there are no units to fill it in. 1. WWII - obviously Normandy is under development but besides of it a lot of player modules are already available while the AI is being created. Not much of a reason for another WW2 European theater at the moment, however extending size of Normandy map would be much welcome. Pacific would be also great but I don't foresee it before more planes and modules (carriers) are developed. Priority for it might also depend on success of Normandy. 2. Korea, for a 50's scenario map there is pretty much nothing apart of MiG-15 and Sabre. No other player modules nor AI units. 3. Vietnam. Probably makes a lot of sense as already a number of modules from the era (MiG-21, Huey, Mi-8, F-5) or close to it are available while some are in development (MiG-19). There are however some “big” representatives of the ear as F-4 that are missing nor officially confirmed to be planned. Would also require a lot of new AI. 5. Fulda Gap would be the best provided that map is of an appropriate size. IMO too early for it at the moment. 6. Strait of Hormuz under development other Middle East maps would be too similar. Anyway, whichever map we'll get IMO more emphasis should be put on two points: 1. Completeness of the scenario. Simulating overall environment of the theaters would bring DCS to another level, allowing to fly full fidelity modules in real scenarios. 2. Size of the maps should be bigger. It would be better to get one larger map than than two of current size.

Updated Open Beta without issues some time ago. Today I've run the process on the Open Alpha. It also worked without any problems. Thanks M3LLC for making this change. For sure it's not easy but it should solve the activation problems that was bothering everyone for quite a while :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: I hope finally it'll become apparent that it's not the plane A or B on one or the other side. The more of the same planes on both sides the more the concept and realism gets watered. It's just server population, people that decide to join one side that make the situation unbalanced. Everything else are just excuses and if one gets addressed others will be found. I've said it many times and keep saying that nothing will change till the player numbers themselves are not put under balancing system.

I think we underestimate the tanks. I'll see if I can find a video but a tank like T-34 would go through a birch forest, barns or even a brick houses. It wasn't something not normal, the tank would just rotate the turret back limiting the risk of demanding its canon. Obviously such "obstacle" would slow it down. As for the DCS, I don't think there is any 3D game that would have a collision of everything with everything plus a destruction modeling for every single object. Such algorithms would be just to heavy plus require too much work. IMO we need to accept some simplifications, at least in the visual aspect.

Which is totally normal if we don't assume that 3D program works by default the same as the real life. As for how it should be programmed to mimic the real thing. The tanks should be able to knock down the trees - there is a "slight" difference between a Huey and 40 tons tank ;).

The fact that trees are colidable for the planes doesn't have to mean that the collision is enabled for AI units or generally for all types of the units.

Soldiers would be a good starting point. Apart of soldiers there should be also emblems for both ground and air units as also neval units (submarines, cruisers, destroyers, utility, etc..). I really hope that ED moves forwards and at some point of time it'll be possible to create a complete and historically adequate Normandy operations. There are some mayor gaps to cover as based on the initiall release content it'll we'll have to wait till setting up even a major events like Falaise battle may be possible without workarounds.

Few questions which might have been already addressed. 1. Will the landing ships be able to get on-shore and off-load troops/vehicles 2. Are the air-desant operations being addressed? I don't see any paratrooper units on the list, nor the planes like DC-3, C-47 3. Are CG-4 Waco gliders considered? 4. The ships list looks quite slim to be honest. Are there more considered? 5. ETA for other nations? Canada, Poland, Australia, Free France, New Zeeland, Norway, Holland, Belgium. 6. Is there an intention to create a working V1 launchers and missiles? 7. Does the map come with a build-in German coastal defence (part of Atlantic wal). If not are there a structures which mission designers could use to set them up? Bunkers, landing crafts blockers, etc... 8. Are there planed any changes related to the triggers engine - for instance an easy way to identify if a bridge or a ground object have been destroyed? 9. Flak guns. Will the AI be able to work as a batteries capable to utilize different strategies (like barrage) or just as an individual, separate units?

There are still quite a few things that aren't complete or are not working correctly. Search on the forums. Few quick that come to my mind is the INS update, some of PCN functionality or the BLG-66 which is just a 3D model. Manual is also really old and requires searching for information from other sources (like forum). Anyway, regardless of that it's a great module plus it comes with a great campaing. Can't go wrong with it.

But none of these went so far with this doctrin. The entire swedish air force was dedicated to these kind of road operations which goes above anything that other countrys did in this regard. +1 :thumbup: It's not only about the airframe being able to land/start from roads. Apart of being able to road on roads there a lot of other aspects like easy maintenance in sparse conditions with minimum time for inspecting, refueling and rearming. Here is a nice Gripen video which emphasizes the same concept: Another thing is that the Vigen was designed to operate in highly pre-planned conditions: plan, get there undetected as long as possible, hit once and hard, run away as fast as can. Such approach was taken as the plane would have to undertake missions in environment where air superiority is not guaranteed. It's totally opposite to A10 which was built to loiter for a long time over AO. If there would be no air superiority A10 would stay on the ground. As for landing on road sections, for instance F-16 could also do that. There are videos from NATO exercises showing F-16 landing on a highway in Germany (not a regular road though). This doesn’t mean however that the F-16 was designed to be operated in road conditions. Quite an opposite, F-16 is a disaster to operate from dirty and even normal airfields as it's low placed air intake works like a runway vacuum cleaner. It's correct however to say that there are a lot of other planes that were rough strip capable, especially soviet/Russian ones. Just an example:

Ok, but just to understand it clearly. Does it have to be a real, physical card or emulated - like in case of VMware. EDIT: Another question. Are there any tested providers in EU which offer configurations confirmed to be working with DCS and have a reasonable price. I think such list would be helpfull (hardware server at home is not an option for me).

Fully agree :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: As for helicopters, there are also always the numbers that could be played on with. Just make the most of RED slots to be Mi-8 with few Hueys and opposite for BLUE.

No, please no. There are planty of all planes vs all planes servers out there.

It wasn't incorporated at all as the whole basic concept behind it was flown. The original goal was to launch fighters from mobile platforms that could be towed by trucks and set up pretty much in any place, in event of destruction of the runways. The problem is as far launching was possible (though dangerous) the planes wouldn’t had a place to land afterwards. This would be an expensive way to get the planes in the air. The program was cancel and didn't go further than the prototype stage. Much more practical and actually implemented was to use road sections.

Great! Thx for the info :thumbup:

I've followed the process. The first automatic activation failed, second was fine but the activation's quantity didn't increase.

That changelog, Just WOW :thumbup:

It really depends on the opinion. If you'll red into more advanced and detailed articles about the overclocking, a lot of people will admit there that just the fact of setting a fixed vCore voltage, regardless what the voltage level is will degrade the life time of CPU. It's just because instead of reducing the voltage when idle the CPU will constantly work on the max, fixed setting. Much better and at the same time more complex to configure with good results method is to use the dynamic vCore (offset method).

I could only add that the fact that Mi-8 is shaking a lot should be actually appreciated as it makes easy to recognize that you're in danger of VRS. Basically with Mi-8 you get a really early and noticable warning with a magnitude that as far as I can tell you don't get from Huey or Ka-50 (don't know about Gazelle). As for recovering, apart of standard nose and collective down method there are also others: http://www.rotorandwing.com/2015/09/01/flying-through-the-vortex/

IMHO if anyone asks on this forum if and how to overlock the CPU he probably doesn't have experience with doing it. We should be a bit more conservative in recommending everyone to overclock his CPU as it's neither a standard nor easy and not guaranteed to be safe procedure. For sure something that can't be done in one shot by watching an youtube tutorial. Even if done correctly with one of the easier and most popular methods based on fixed voltage and multiplier settings the CPU life duration will get a serious hit. On the other hand if something goes wrong the best what will happen is having to clear the BIOS and start from defaults while obviously you can also fry the CPU or/and mobo.

I guess will have to wait for an official information on how the bussiness model will look like. I wouldn't be supprised though if it'll be different from the recently announced units pack. It seems to draw the direction for the future.

It's more up to ED to decide. MiG-21 is not the only one with a list of fixes waiting for being published.

:thumbup:. Just to add a bit regarding the radar usage and effectiveness at low altitudes. According to the real flight manual, whenever intercepting a target flying at altitude below 2000-3000m: - set the antena tilt position to up - as the radar looks up the intercepting plane has to position itself 300-500 m below the target (otherwise the target would be below the radar beam cone). Intercepting targets flying below 1000 m is difficult due to the ground clutter. Actually I need to check it but at 1000 m the first 10-13 km on the radar should be covered by the interference from ground clutter (~1/3 of the radar screen).

I'm really thinking what it has to take to get any kind of player count balancing system. Asking Adam and Jamie for a comment: 1. Players don't stack teams for an easy win - MYTH BUSTED 2. Playing a team with no opposition is boring - MYTH BUSTED 3. Players are going to balance themself - MYTH BUSTED