blackbelter

Why not? If some of your 'understanding' contradicts reality, then you must be mistaken. Adjust your understanding to reality. Do not expect the other way round.

In fact I have seen Chinese translations of FC manuals. So that shouldn't be a problem.

That's true. But having a user interface but without the rest is already a huge step forward. It's the easist thing to do, and can be very effective.

From ED's point of view, it is important to have as many languages implemented as possible, especially major languages such as Chinese. DCS can gain much more popularity in a community simply by implementing a user interface in its language. Think about the effect/effort ratio. It's irrational not to do it. That being said, I understand that the current situation is determined by the 'smallness' of ED as a company. But I am sure there are some specialized company to which ED can outsource this task. Anyway. As things are, and as a Chinese national, I hope I can help a little in the localization of DCS in the Chinese community.

Personally I am using this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-BLT2CP4G3D1869DT1TX0CEU-Ballistix-DDR3-1866-PC3-14900/dp/B0069OG1RM/ref=sr_1_3?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1391875124&sr=1-3&keywords=ballistix+tactical with my P8Z77 mb and i5-3570K. Couldn't be happier. I have two 2X4 kits, totalling 16G.

So that we can blow them up?:D

I thought it is for the released version? In the official updates, it is posted in the thread for the released version... Anyway, will check later.

Now that I have 16G of 1866 RAM in my rig, it is the last thing that I need to upgrade... DDR4? What good does it bring if DDR3 RAM is not the bottle neck...

Tacview works with 1.2.7 with no problems... At least for me.

Since TMWH is in the list, I assume you don't have a problem with the price. Then I don't see what you are still pondering about...

Any news on this front? :music_whistling:

If you are running .miz file from older versions of DCS, try opening the mission in editor and resave it with a different name. Also try updating graphix driver...

I have the same problem. I have installed dcs outside the program files folder, and I have av disabled. I have also ran the updater with admin privilege. The problem persists. I checked the folder under question. The read only tab is checked in the property panel. I think that is the reason. The problem is that I can't uncheck it...

Thanks guys! You've said it all... I checked the trk file, and indeed F16 was in AB right until the moment the first LA appeared on my HUD. Then it switched off AB all the way until the merge. That explains why LA disappeared then. It feels great learning this kind of things, which make DCS more like real life than anything else (including pretty visuals). But shame on me. I should have figured this out by carefully examining the trk file by myself. One side question about beaming. As far as I've heard, beaming is probably the safest thing to do if the only thing that I wanted was that missile losing my ass. But that is seldomly the case. In a missile fight, one also wants to maintain a potentially offensive position, or, at least, keep the knowledge on the whereabouts of the bandit. This is very difficult if one beams, since visual contact is easily lost in this way. That's why I have seldomly beamed. What's your opinion on this? Do you ever beam? If you do, under what conditions? Thanks in advance.

Thank you! I think that was the problem... In the initial phase of the approach, I was in AB indeed, thinking of increasing my speed amap, also thinking that I was outside its range anyway. The launch Q of R-73 remains a myth, though. But it's not much of a concern now.

Thanks for your answer, Exorcet. My question now has changed to: Is R73 even functioning in 1.2.7? Check the ACMI file attached. As you can hopefully see, the R73 that I shot at F16 wasn't even TRYING to pursue its target. The F16 was flying straight and level. No defensive measures were dispensed. Yet R73 simply ignores it, and flew at its own 'free will'. It's not out of energy, since it is high above F16 at the merge. The launch range was another thing. As I have mentioned before, the launch window is about a split of a second, after which the launch Q reappears only when F16 is about 5 km away. I rarely survives this far into the game... since I am looking for the launch Q while being defensive. I get it that if the radar detects that F16 is not coming directly at me, it will reduce the launch range. But to 5 km? Really? Meanwhile, I have been going in zig-zag while dispensing counter-measures. I have also intermittently reduced the engin to its minimum power, using afterburner only when necessary. Yet F16 has no problem throwing AIM-9M at me. If I lock on F16 using the EO tracking system, it can break lock almost certainly just before the launch Q appears. Then I can no longer relock it until much later. Again, I rarely survive that far, being defensive while looking to lock on it. So, what is it that I am doing wrong? Please share your knowledge/experience. Much appreciated. Tacview-20140127-230625.rar

I've been having my butt kicked by AIs a lot lately, chiefly by their heat/radar seekers. They are too sneaky to my taste... I can't even handle one F16 AI armed with AIM-9M :helpsmilie:. Shame on me. In addition to my incapability to avoid being shot at, R73 has also caused me a lot of troubles. It seems that, the launch authorization of R73 is valid for a split of a second. If I miss that (very very narrow) window, I'll have to get very close to the bandit before the launch authorization reappears on the HUD. In the mean time, F16 has thrown a handful of AIM-9 in the air, and one of them is bound to kiss me. Sometimes even before I get to launch my first R73. So, if some of you kind souls can share your tactics against the heat/radar seekers, I will be most grateful. Furthermore, is R73 supposed to work in the way I described above? If not, what is it that I am doing wrong? Thanks guys.

No mention of correcting the performance hit by canopy light in Su-27?

Same here...

Auto-updater works here. But the version number is not 1.2.7, but 1.2.6.99999.3. LOL

The thing is, instead of aiming for higher computing power for each core, chip producers are now aiming for more cores, hoping that software development will simply follow suit. But the fact is that some computations, due to their serial nature, simply cannot be divided into threads, and thus cannot take advantage of the multi-cores that are available. I am not complaining about the chip producers. It is not their fault, but rather physics that is limiting the further development of silicon chips. But it is unfair to say that it is software that is slowing things down. Our hope lies in new 2D materials, which may replace silicon in the near future, or quantum computing devices. But their commercialization is at least a few decades away from us.

This is not uncommon in this forum. One can often see in this forum people whose signature or avatar are provocative images reminding one of the evil things of WWII, or unfriendly statements of the cold war era.

Amazing... Looking forward to it. Although if I had the option, I would like to have the AFM first.

It's all individual-specific, whether clickable cockpit or AFM is more important. No point arguing, since you can never convince each other. Things are complicated. A clear line can rarely be drawn. Placing each module into either DCS or FC category, with no gray space in-between? All that achieves is more confusion for some people. People who follow the topic in the forum, or read the product description in detail, will not be confused. The rest will be anyway.

Hope you can get a longer fuze in the next update...