blackbelter

And for those who are trying to base their statements on facts that are available to us: I salute you. Thanks for educating us. For those China-haters: I pity you... Indeed I do. You must be suffering on a daily basis, seeing the exciting development in China. I feel sorry for you.

As a matter of fact there is not so much of a discussion here... People are commenting on everything as if they have read the designer's notebook and flight manual of the new Chinese fighter. Some people appear to have had a good glance at some classified documents concerning the information technological capabilities of China. However, let's face it: most of the specs of the new Chinese fighters are top secrets. So it is not surprising that most statements I've seen in this thread are based on assumptions -- mostly biased assumptions -- which do not constitute facts. At most, it is an announcement of personal opinions, from which no possible conclusion can be drawn. I am not against that, FYI. People are biased, and people do have the right to announce their opinions. But I would much appreciate it if you did not state it as if it is a fact, but make it clear that it nothing more than your personal opinion. You want to play as an unbiased judge while being so obviously biased? Come on. Give me a break.

There wasn't such a label 40 years ago. Laugh all you want, but we just need some time.

We are trying to make sure history does not repeat itself. Literally, that's all we are trying to do.

Just in case you are confused: this is what I am talking about.

I am just amazed by some country who, without help from its Friend, couldn't even make one aircraft, yet still points it's finger at someone else who is trying to secure his nation independently. You want to talk about the difference between stealing and adoption? Let me tell you: the latter is free from the sense of moral. You want to talk about morality related to weapons, war and ultimately national security? You've got to be kidding me. Maybe you, as someone from Japan, should read about world history 1937-1945, especially the Japanese and Chinese part. Maybe part of American, too, especially the part about the end of 1941. Then you can understand why I will not bother answering to YOU about this point.

So you think you know that the new Chinese fighters are similar to other aircraft in terms of something that is more than the outer shell, so that they qualify as copying, but F2 do not? Please comment on the similarities, apart from the outer shells, of course, between J20 or J21 and any other aircrafts. Please do. It will be very exciting to know. As for your comments on whether you can accomplish something by using known technologies, i am not taking your word for it. I believe the developers in China know better. If you think all they do is blindly copying, it's up to you. I'll refer you back to my previous posts for my opinion on this matter.

Given what i said in my earliest post in this thread, what is your point? With or without license, F2 is still a copy of F16 albeit not an "exact copy", is it not? I was saying that it would be foolish, at the least, not to mention risking our national security, to abandon something that you can learn easily by studying other jets, and start from zero just for the sake of being original, especially given the quite limited rescources at our disposal, and the urgency of our national security. I am not saying originality and creativity are not welcomed, it's just that we didn't have the time. I am happy to see more and more things uniquely Chinese appear with each generation of jets. For J7, we basically adopted everything from its Russian counter parts. For J11, we adopted the outer shell of Su27. That is not to be denied. But we developed our own avionics system. With the revealing of J20, I am so happy to see our first (or second, the first being J10?) uniquely Chinese jet fighter. With time, we will have our own engine and everything else. We just need some more time, more time!

I meant F2. I am not in the position to officially deny or admit copying here, neither is any of you. I am just happy that we are on our way to the next generation of jets. And for those who commented on the information technology capabilities of China: you appear to be very well informed, and it is good for you. Keep commenting, please, because we uninformed people are very interested in knowing what you can tell us.. It would be even nicer of you if you could quote your source of information.

Nice pictures RglsPhoto. Looking forward to more.

No, macros doesn't mean that the 'SAC F60' looks like F16 to him. I believe what macros was talking about, which caused confusion in you, and subsequently in Pyroflash, was referring back to my previous post. And as senior members, I'm sure you know what I was talking about if you've read my post.

Copying? Maybe. But in the battle field, what matters is if you can get the upper hand, not if you copied something or not. This is what we Chinese learnt from The Art of War. Because war is a matter of life or death, for which people should struggle for the best using anything they have. For this reason, I think it is wise to adopt some mature technologies that are known to work, and concentrate our energy in respects that we can more likely make breakthroughs in the near future. This IMHO is the most economic and fastest way of advancing our defense capabilities and accumulating knowledge and engineering techniques. But if you think we Chinese are doing nothing but "copying", which seems so extremely trivial, then good luck to you. If it is indeed so easy, and if your government is not stupid enough to put anything above national security, I think you should do that too. (Right, you've already done that. Some large F16 comes into my mind.) And if you value originality so much, please stop buying/waiting for foreign military aircrafts, and develop some for yourself. If you think something is funny, laugh all you want (while you desperately look forward to the arrival of F35). Given the history, I don't think it surprises anybody that China is behind Nations such as America and Russia in terms of science and technology. But we at least are trying to catch up, and we can already see the hope of achieving that in the not-so-distant-future. I am not particularly fond of the Chinese government otherwise, but I think they have done a good job in this respect.

Being torn here. I can use better visuals provided by the DCS environment. But I only fly Su27. I will continue to do the same in foreseeable future, since I am still at the learning stage. For the same reason, it is difficult for me to appreciate the AFM for the missiles. When I've advanced enough, I expect to see DCS module Su27 already, which will give me a few years at least to familiarize myself with the bird. Plus I already have the DCS A10C. That's something to be learnt meanwhile. There. I've answered my own question. FC3 is not for me. Visuals is not so important after all...

Why do we have to separate realism and balance? Balance in the sense that they are as close to their real world counter parts as possible is what ED products should aim... If F15 is superior in BVR, so be it. If Su27 is superior in close range combat, so be it. There is no need to surpress one or the other purposely for the sake of achieving absolute balance. After all, realism is DCS's thing.

I installed LOMAC on my computer with win7-64 OS. No problem here.

I never said that. When I say AFM for F15, I meant the F15E module. I was commenting (speculating) on why people are complaining, not whether ED products are about balance or not. By the way, I am not sure if your statements about ED's take on balance (that they are never about balance) represents a fact that is so far true, or a strategic route that they plan to follow. If it is a fact as it stands so far, you are of course right, and I think it is something needs to be changed. If it were their strategy, then I would be utterly disappointed. Your comments about being technically balanced means being identical, and that war doesn't have a balance, are 'technically' true, of course. But they are nothing I meant, and have nothing to do with what I said.

I think you touched the central reason why people are complaining about FC3 now... In a word: balance. In the world of DCS, balance does not simply amount to developing one aircraft for each side -- assuming we put as two sides against each other the USSR and the NATO. Do you call making a USSR helicopter and a NATO attacker a balance between the two sides? I personally would not. To make one helicopter for each side would be balance; to make a good attacker for one side, and improve SAM on the other side would be balance. What's more important, do you call giving Su25T/Shark AFM, and simultaneously giving F15C/E AFM as well as other improved features balance? I personally would not. IMHO, the real exciting balance in DCS would be improving fast moving fighters at the same rate. But that's not happening so far... With F15C gaining its exciting new features, and F15E in its development, we don't see Su27, which is the real balancing force against F15, getting any new development, apart from those FC3 features, which are shared by F15C. Other projects under development have the same issue. P51D is awesome. But against what, apart from itself? Mig21 is nice to have, too. But against what? F15? So it's time to reconsider what balance really means... Just my opinion, by the way. I criticize ED products because I love them. Albeit having some issues, they are still the best in their genre. Keep going ED! And looking forward to new announcements.

Recently I've been playing FC2 with 3D Vision. The in-cockpit view looks truly stunning, especially when the convergence is adjusted properly. The sad truth is that, the better it looks, the more inaccurate the gunsight is. Last night I wasted all my bullets in a dogfight, not one of them hit anything. I even tried to close one of my eyes, and still it's close to impossible to aim: the gunsight is just off by too much. Then I switched back to 2D, and all went well.. I haven't tried DCS yet, although I have a key for A10C. But according to what I could read here, it's not any better, if not worse, than FC2.. Please do something about it... Thanks!

To be honest, I've agreed not to touch Dcs and pc games in general until I finish my thesis... My gf is watching...

Thanks for pointing that out Peter. What I meant by official support is precisely the fix of the HUD issue. Is this problem fixed in 1.2.0? I cannot test it myself. Any of you have tried S3D on 1.2.0?

3dmark 11 finally breaks 10000 with this driver.

Well, I guess different people have different experience then... In my case, I could run stress tests for hours, IBT or Prime95, but crash on daily using (ie, gaming). I then found a strong correlation between daily usage and WEI assessment. Seems working perfect for me.

For overclockers, I also have one thing to share: To test system stability, forget about all those stress tests, use WEI assessment in their stead. Don't mind about the results. As long as your system can pass one WEI assessment, it is stable. Using stress tests such as IBT or Prime95, you can waste time running them for hours and hours, and still cannot be quite certain about your system stability. Using WEI, it takes you about 10 minutes. At least in my case, this has worked like a charm. Using IBT (Maximum memory usage) to test the thermal situation of an overclocked CPU under load is a good idea, though.

I am not sure if anybody has done this, but I have posted in the wishlist section of DCS World, requesting for the official support of stereographic 3D. If you are with me, have a look at my thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1489918#post1489918

This has been discussed somewhere else, but I did not find a dedicated thread in the wishlist sector of the forum. I would like to request for the official support of stereographic 3D in coming releases of DCS world, with Nvidia 3D vision and/or some other software (DDD, iZ3D etc.). The discussion in http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=87102&highlight=3D in particular, posts #33 and #38, have made it clear that, while DCS A10C works with Nvidia 3D vision to certain extent, there are definitely some issues. In particular, the HUD is not focused at infinity, thus making gun-aiming very awkward. Please bring this feature to an official level. This would make this game so much more immersive and engaging. Since now DCS World is still in its beta stage, I feel that it is the right moment to make this request. Please consider. Cheers.