aaron886

Sorry, but this is a guy who bad-talks the F-15, one of the most highly-spoken air superiority fighters ever built. In my mind, he's comparing the F-35 to a past standard. He has a very specific perspective and seems unable to imagine how technology might change.

"Front page headlines" sounds like an operation-specific code word. Every NATO operation is going to have some of its own code words, I imagine.

Flight simulation, as small as it has become, will GREATLY value the VR experience, and I think Oculus recognizes that. They've probably seen the response for War Thunder with Rift.

^Wha? IGN.

Just picked up the corded version of that mouse... Awesome gaming mouse.

Caballeros, please use English on the English forum! :) Por favor, inglés. Is there a difference between the C-101 and A-36 other than weapons-carrying capability?

Jaz, absolutely no ire intended here, but I think you should do some more research into texturing and associated techniques! It seems like the reason that you have ignored that aspect of your model is based as much in misunderstanding as personal choice. If you want to shoot for a high quality product, you'll need good texture art. :) That said, if your general goal is subtlety, I can certainly appreciate that! Not really the case, unfortunately. In a studio-quality rendering engine, maybe, but in a real-time desktop PC flight simulation... not a chance. Creating content for flight simulation is all about subtle deception. Giving the user the impression of detail.

He could easily get his key from steam, then use the Module Manager in-game. Right? BTW... wrong place for this thread.

Good to see, guys! Start pushing for that EFM!

It's not bad, the model is pretty good! The lack of texture is apparent though, making large surfaces look flat and bland. Good diffuse textures will complement your geometry, not "cheapen" it! Specular mapping would further enhance the way its surface catches light, and improve the non-uniformity that gives a real object more authenticity.

No.

There's some good geometry in your model, but don't discount the importance of good texture work! It would go a long way toward improving the visual realism.

Pretty rude statement. Not everyone is a native english speaker. Until you're paying by the letter for every update that they don't owe you, have a bit of respect and be kind.

Wow. :unsure:

Cheaper. Lighter. Faster.

2 is definitely a small gathering. :D

With support from ED. Without ED, that capability does not yet exist.

Yours? The one where you can say "the fact is that I've heard?" Triple post was not required, by the way.

For all intents and purposes, no. There is nothing you can work with right now to create another DCS environment.

:noexpression: http://fsb.zedge.net/scale.php?img=OS85LzUvMi8xLTg3Njc5ODUtOTk1MjU0My5qcGc&ctype=1&v=4&q=81&xs=620&ys=383&sig=650e4b13d30cb3bb1e2137c7ac6024aa2e73a810

:megalol: F-16 and Gripen were not developed at the same time, at all. 1974 vs 1988. The F-16 was not the first fly-by-wire aircraft produced in the US anyway. Also, this is largely bunk, at least at the scale you're talking about. The Gripen and the F-16 are 3 feet different in length. You keep making weird statements and then struggle to shift the subject. This isn't constructive, it's a lousy "measuring" competition with everyone supporting their country's aircraft.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone would contend that the ARH/SRH guidance simulation in DCS right now is highly accurate, even if the missiles' physical models are improving.

Oof! You can really see it in the trees on that Sabre landing video. I take it back! Maybe not quite as bad for the Hornet departures anyway?

I'm going to say that's windy, but not 30-40 knots. Maybe 25.