Pitot

Uhm... There is that little thing about "now is not the time to reserve significant resources into solving something that is not a deal-braking imperfection while we have burning issues with current deficiencies". I prefer that 2 years for developing awesome weather side-effects to be spent on making more complex......... ECM for example. This is a bit like a person that complains to the architecture expert about color of the building. Yes! The color matters overall! But if your supporting columns are under construction you don't redirect bunch of workforce to paint the building. Anyway, they'd just get in the way of people working on important issues. (just an example, not necessairly correct in terms of architecture) I am one of the bigger criticizers about how some things are handled, but I also try to look at the things from the practical side. Yes, I do get carried away with feelings or wishes just like you do, but you need to sort the priorities. P. S. There is a lot of scripted events in those games that people here take as example, while in DCS you can't script bluefor or redfor on multiplayer... OFC it is much easier to render something at specific point in time, (game)space and with limited duration, but in DCS you have multiple entities doing multiple things that need fast, accurate and resource hungry rendering. When creating a game, you need to ensure it behaves the relatively same at low and high load. Now, go play DCS on a 2 core pc with 8 gigs of RAM and ATI 5700. Try single and multiplayer. You will feel the difference. Not because something is wrong with DCS, but because it is very heavy on hardware. Now, it is easy to be awed by flying through clouds and not paying attention to every single few FPS lost and feel like DCS could handle it easily. I understand that. But it's not that simple.

I am going to go hard on this: Cr*p games need overdoing in the field of visual effects to get a player to feel immersion. DCS does not need that, as much as we all like fancy things or realistic effects. When all is working peachy, then they can worry about micro aesthetics.

Agreed on taxiing/helis/wwII subject. But, concerning that, I will have to loop you back to my additionally edited post, and direct you to pay attention to the "Edit 2" at the end of the post: This post P. S. As I said, you're a respectable interlocutor. Cheers.

Okay, As for the rain: Given the shape of a fighter plane cockpit, there would be rain drops when not moving, but when you accelerate there would be only streaks of water going upwards/backwards, and after accelerating even more you'd probably have none on the glass and possibly some high-pressure condensation at places where glass construction is interrupted with metal frames. There would also be some streaking up to some point at the lower end of glass, where it enters the metal canopy construction, but at high speeds that would not exist too. It is awesome that graphics are improving in DCS, but let's not get unrealistic. You can create the wanted effect in 2 ways: 1. The above mentioned one, by someone from ED staff, where you have an entirely new render layer over the picture, 2. Placing a particle emitter in front of the plane that would actually emit liquid particles to the plane. To anyone using brain - it is clear that both options require immense rendering power. Apart from that, number of lines in the new code for any of the solutions is equal to the number of hair strains on a head of an average DCS player. On top of that, you need to tell the game engine not to sync these effects client-server-client-wise. Other players should not receive info on your raindrops and pressurized water trails, because that would make the latency problems a monster. Given that fact, now you need to write a completely new piece of code that allows other clients to individually render outside effects when your airplane is in the field of view (those trails), which is another mountain of work. Sum up: As far as I am also a person that wants to see as much as possible improvements in DCS and video game world when it comes to rendering all kind of awesome things, I would like even more that ED manages to deliver all that had been promised by now. "Other Games" - Other games are done in other engines. Other games sometimes have much less underlying layers than DCS, so they can spare resources to render 500 individual rain drops on a glass with refraction included without your PC becoming the Eye of Sauron (big burning thing, that is). I personally feel like deleting posts that include other games is a bit too much, but I also understand admins because saying "in that game it is possible" while it's a completely different game engine is like living in Chad and complaining to the authorities because there are no snowy days in the year. Edit: You can find Mryia video of rain takeoff on youtube. Even with it's flat, almost-vertical glass - after reaching a certain speed, there are no more raindrops or streaks on the glass. So is it really needed that bunch of people spend months of their lives so we can watch rain for 3 minutes on a piece of glass while taxiing? Edit 2: If absolutely necessary to have rain: 1 - place a piece of glass between you and your monitor(s); 2 - Hire a minion with a sprayer and a fan; 3 - While flying, the minion should spray liquid onto the glass panel and blow it off with the (powerful) fan. We have people making physical cockpits, why not make a rain. (Disclaimer: Edit 2 is purely for fun and to make people laugh a bit)

Question for the moderators: Is it okay to publicly ask people to trade module for module on forums? For example - asking if anyone would trade his Mig15 for F86 - but explicitly stated that the trade goes without any money transfer being involved, just module-for-module, and the trade should be done via official DCS website tools for transferring account/module binding?

Yes, plenty of diverse helicopter operations are possible and fit good into the original and derived scenarios. On top of that, a guy above was quite right when mentioning F18, F14 etc.

1st of all - I am not so much surprised that none of people who can say anything in the name of ED had said anything on this thread, even with a poll that has ATM 90.91% of positive votes - because I know that companies don't discuss new moments on the go, but at serious meetings where multiple subjects are discussed and roadmap is revised/amended/set. Also, we don't know what exact plans do they have on releasing tools for 3rd party developers for creating theaters. If ED decides that they would prefer someone else making this theater, since they have enough workload as it is, they could/will tell us that when developer tools for creating terrain are ready. That way, any interested 3rd party developers could apply with a development plan for a licence to create this theater. Also, take note that ED had learned that giving casual estimates on what will they release and when had caused a lot of trouble in public relations for them and that they decided (and this next are words I've read from one of moderators at this forum) that they will not make such estimates in the future. Personally, I think that way is more fair than saying "we'll release this and that - by then" given that development of this simulator is a pretty volatile environment. P. S. If you or anyone else happen to think I am defending ED or being a fanboy, be advised that I have permanent warn for a reason here. I am just being reasonable. But, in the end, it would be very nice to have, let's say, Wags reply to this thread with "we will discuss this subject at undefined point in time, as a sign of paying attention to the voice of the community". No more than that, but at least that much. I clearly understand that it is not a moment to make bold statements (I mean - not for ED) regarding this subject, but seeing that they pay attention to one of most positively voted polls on forums would be a very nice gesture.

Woo Hoo :D Glad to hear that. P. S. Offftopic What ever happened to announcing the winners and gifts of screenshot/video contest Xcom?

I support this fiercely.

Is it possible to do some clean up on "sticky" threads all over the forums.eagle.ru, because some of those are long time obsolete. Some others that concern site rules and similar issues could be moved to another, new, subforum, but there are things marked "sticky" that really clutter (sub)forums. Here's a clean example: Obsolete and there are many more that are obsolete in different ways.

Lucky thing that this is not a very hard plane to get along with XD

Point made.

Yes, that is what I was saying exactly :D Just expressed myself a bit wrong, forgot to mention year two posts back.

Thank you for the reply and explanation. I don't mind comparison to ARMA, comparison is a simple way to show differences and different concepts without much explanation, and it's not necessarily a way to denigrate any of the sides in the comparison.

Well, for start - I never drove a tank IRL or was a gunner in one, but this seems a bit off. Before making any bug report, I'd like to ask is this a known issue: AP Rounds, T55 - Bouncing off buildings, and sometimes, depending on impact angle, terrain. Screenies below, look for the yellow dot against the sky - that is a round that already bounced. Bounces up, falls down. 1. 2. 3. 4.

[ame] [/ame]

Bollocks, now it seems like I have to learn that Sabre I bought and left to rot in the basement :D Seriously now, I very much like the idea of every next round being a different era. There are many reasons for that. It gives BS team time to work on a certain period fixes and improvements until the cycle is full, and it gives everyone a chance to play.

What I've was thinking about is changing the year. XD

Now... When you set JTAC AI (I think), you have that little option... I think it's "visible" or something (at work atm, can't check). It toggles should AI unit be capable of marking a target without having a line of sight or not. As for anything else than clouds - if this was to be applied to units it could solve the "Almighty Eyes AI" problem. When it comes to AI not seeing through clouds, I suppose there should be a lot of new code to implement it. But, just an idea on how to develop solution from an existing code. Could this be because minimum cloud level is somewhere near the line of IR SAM reach... XD

Here, when he goes into the cloud at 2:54 he says "Not into the cloud..." and this was recorded while we were flying, not a track, obviously. https://youtu.be/QR8guzEA6UY?t=2m53s But then, you have the thing where "server" renders clouds and communicates with two different clients... So, that is lag and/or latency what makes problems, if there are problems. Just guessing, someone from ED team should confirm or deny. P.S. Don't remember if this was static or dynamic. I suppose static is the case in this video, but not sure.

Yes, you can make multiple systems, true. As for the people saying stuff about cloud positions: I have flown missions with small number of pilots (up to 4 more beside me), where I was the server and we all saw the same clouds at same positions. I don't think that there is anything wrong with how clouds are rendered, it is NOT a random particle emission, but the latency/lag are maybe what gives you hard time. So, I firmly believe that this is programmed just fine, but will work a lot better when we get dedicated server. To ED: I wish someday you find time to model different types of clouds into the game, so we can have orgasms while flying up high. :pilotfly:

Okay, okay, let's rectify some things: 1. Okay, this is wrong. That said - IFR situations are limited to night, fog and storm, using terrain height to make variety, and combinations of those. 2. Before the game engine got updated, some servers enforced nice weather because of the hardware impact of clouds, storms etc. and people got used to flying in VFR conditions at public servers. OFC server owners are not very eager to risk loosing people to try out different scenarios. 3. Balance - It would be ridiculous to have around the clock VFR server, but it would be nice to have some missions that start at day, end at night, or other way around, even sometimes night missions. 4. 104th Server is the first that comes to my mind after No3. They tried in all their honesty to bring diversity with some night missions on their server. What happened, from the point of view of a person visiting multiple TeamSpeak servers in that period, is that the most of the "old players" who get regularly involved in public server flying - was too lazy to fly at night. They found it to be a bugger to them and just wanted plain old fun without much RL time wasted. Personally - I understand all of the reasons for this or that. Different folks, different mingle. 5. Many people fly on non-public servers and create diversity for themselves. This is a good solution for you, and trust me - you can find a lot of joy in it. Don't expect a lot of improvement in how the public servers work, just my personal opinion, until ED reaches the point where we will have: A - Complex weather system that allows us to manipulate weather in such amount that you can have multiple meteo-conditions on one map. B - Dynamic campaign engine C - Dedicated server

Does pressing LAlt+C helps with mouse-interference issues? (don't have beta installed, just proposing a workaround) EDIT: I was thinking of in airplane cockpit view.

Excuse me, but all these other people's posts are too colored with emotions to understand clearly what are they talking about, at least this early in the morning. So, is this the subject: Inertia Coupling and Inertia Coupling 2 ?

I did notice that GTX users complain more about micro stutters, as I said on some other similar thread... As for 1080, dunno what to say. Older models - try older drivers if it worked better earlier (I know DCS was updated, not the drivers, but still...) I am, again, presuming (like I think others are) that if it's not GPU driver issue, that you have a major bottleneck. BTW You're welcome :)