RedTiger

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! You're just adding to the already herniating amounts of rep inflation!!!

Holy crap! I go away for awhile and now my rep is through the roof. This thread is like single-handedly responsible for a world increase in rep inflation. Pretty soon all the world rep markets will crash! Rep won't be worth the kilobytes it's stored on! ANARCHY ANARCHY ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF...good job guys. :mad: :P

I was thinking the same thing. It is flabbergasting at how much horsepower and how much time it has taken for this. For the REAL test...take off from Krasnodar. :joystick: That one's the REAL killer, IMO.

Is this offer still good while supplies last?

I don't know, I'm inclined to agree with lucasdigital. At the big retail stores like Best Buy here in the US, the flight sim section will have about 3 or 4 rows of FSX, 1 row of X-Plane, and MAYBE one or two copies of F4AF, although I haven't see a copy of even that in months. IL2 and LOMAC aren't even available. What this tells me is that for the time being, if there is no MSFS for sale, there might as well be no flight sims for sale.

Well, for one, the cockpit looks all out of whack. The Model looked ok at a glance.

Hey, he cheats! He's using a trackball. ANYONE can play marble madness if they get to use a real marble! Try playing that stuff with an NES control pad... :P

You COULD be upfront and say you disagree and state why...or not. :D

If you look around, you can plainly see that there are more non-North American forum members than there are North American ones. That's my guess.

After you raise him from the dead, check or uncheck the box that keeps your pilot from dying when you "die" in mission.

PC games and PC gamers lend themselves to "hardcore" types of games better than console players do. This isn't to say that both are mutually exclusive, because they aren't, but they can differ drastically. Go google the term "catass". "Catassing" was coined from a person playing Everquest, a PC game. PC games that are not console ports tend to have much more depth, particularly RPGs, even ones you'd consider simplistic. PC gamers will literally play an RPG all night and memorize complex tables, crate spreadsheets, etc. just to increase the damage their character does by 1%. They will put in a lot of effort to get a very small advantage, and much of that effort is focused on more brainy things (researching tables, creating spreadsheets, programming simple programs, figuring out math equations for underlying game mechanics, etc). In other words, consoles are mainstream. PC games are nerdy. :D The very nature of this just makes PC gamers all the more flight sim-friendly. As someone who has done these very same things on various computer RPGs, I can tell you that the effort and drive is not all that different from the way someone might approach flight sims. :)

Well, I'll say something positive. FSX does seem to provide a good suspension of disbelief about actually flying. I don't mean the flight model, I mean looking out the window and saying "Hey, look at canyon walls zip past me! I'm really flying fast!". Better than LOMAC at any rate. :D

Remember, you're in an airplane! :pilotfly: Once the target gets close enough to disappear under your nose, fly just a tad bit closer. Then pitch up a little, maybe a 30 degree climb for about a second, and then roll inverted. Look out the windscreen to get sight of your target again (you may have to roll around a bit to see it if the canopy is in the way). Once you've sighted it again, pull back into your 20 or 30 degree dive, putting the target in the reflector glass, then roll back over and put the pipper on the target. You should be right side up, in the proper dive, with the pipper on the target. Pickle when ready! :) This works well for any aircraft where you can use CCIP to deliver bombs.

You won't be able to when you fly DCS: Viper/Hog/Eagle, that is guaranteed. Buttons aside (which you won't have enough and your layout will be total ass compared to the excellent layout of the real thing), you're going to have difficulty flying a plane to its fullest ability with a console controller pad/stick. There's a lot of give and take involved in keeping a plane at sustained corner, and having about a quarter inch of stick play is going to suck. If the stick worked like the Viper's, maybe, but since its based on amount of movement and not force, it will be difficult. Come to think of it...I'm not sure why you think flying the Black Shark would be comfortable on a console thumbstick... :huh:

You beat me to it! :mad: ;) I also agree. Look closer. You might find that the PC version is indeed "doing more".

For the same reason that I could run Morrowind on the Xbox without all the stutters of the PC version: proprietary components. Do not underestimate this. Each component of a console is far from being "off the shelf". The entire system is designed and tuned to work with all the other components. It is not designed with you cracking it open and using the processor or GPU on some other platform. There's also not a steady stream of driver updates you see for the PC. This is a HUGE deal. Furthermore it makes the developer's job far easier. He or she can tune the game to run at 30-60 fps on this hardware and can be sure that this performance will be almost if not EXACTLY the same across all consoles. Instead of the GPU manufacterer having to update their drivers every time a new game comes out, the game developer is forced to make their game work with the console and software as-is. Compare this to your PC. Your processor, GPU, motherboard, sound card, harddrive, disk drives, etc. are all designed to be compatible with a wide variety of hardware. As such, there will never be a perfect fit. Also, now the developer must take into account all these various conbinations AND drivers to boot! This is why you might see a patch address some obscure thing like "fixed problem where game would crash on Geforce 7s with so and so on" etc. The catch here is that the console will never change. You may be able to run Fallout better on your console now, but you will eventually be able to run it on your PC with far, far greater graphical quality. Look at Oblivion. That game was a game dumbed-down both game-play and graphical wise for consoles if I've ever seen one. The Xbox player is playing the same game he originally bought. The PC player can now download texture replacements that are 3 to 6 times the size of the default ones. He can crank all the settings up to max. AND he has the construction set tools available to tweak the game-play to his hearts desire. I'm not sure I would want to have any DCS modules on a console. I like having the ability to tweak and add mods. As for why I don't think they would work? Well, mostly because of the lack of a keyboard and HOTAS.

I wanna bump this thread in hopes that more people read EvilBivol's post. :) Regarding Falcon fans who will not fly it due to the lack of a DC, I'm starting to recall that I've never heard any of them say the DC was realistic. What you usually here is "immersion" in contrast to LOMAC which they describe as "sterile". I think that flight sims, as a genre have nailed the avionics part. Getting 90% of the real thing into the simulation is possible. I also think that it has the FM part nailed as well. The next big thing is missions you fly. Right now, it would seem that you have to choose; do you want immersion at the cost of realism or do you want to have to fly missions the pros are expected to but at the cost of some immersion and replay value? I'd guess that Falcon fans would probably say that they'd like both and that both are possible with Falcon. I'd also guess that a lot of them make up for the lack of realism in the DC by flying multiplayer and using realistic protocol and procedures. For me, I never really was interested in sims for anything but flying an aircraft with missions and tactics as close to real life as possible. Any sense of immersion and continuity between missions was a distant secondary concern. A dynamic campaign acceptable to military clients would be a very tall order. I have my doubts about how warm they'd be to such a concept. A pilot could pick up lots of bad habits if he were "abandoned" to learn his craft in such a simulation. Ironically, I think that any dynamic campaign the military would use would have very undynamic controls over the action to make sure that a given learning objective is covered.

If I may say so, if this doesn't go a long way to putting this one to bed, than I don't know what will. This is -all- that needs to be said, really. Its funny to look at the simulation of the aircraft and think "realism, realism, realism!" and to be excited about military contracts involved and how this will lend authenticity but then revert back the other way in favor of a dynamic campaign that can't even be used by the military, don't you think? ;) Here's a little anecdote for you. I'm playing Red Viper right now. And for the first time, I'm actually enjoying Falcon 4. I'm playing a DC right now and, frankly, really enjoying it. I think that sim and I have finally clicked. I finally "get" why so many people have enjoyed that sim and its DC all these years. However, my enjoyment was won by finally accepting that the DC is far from perfect. I think the moment when I finally realized this is when I read the section in the Red Viper manual about "hacking BARCAPs". What this means is that you take all those otherwise boring and meaningless BARCAPs, reduced the arbitrary patrol time to zero, and then covert that mission into whatever the heck you think would help the most. I either like to fly around and troll the FLOT for high-threat aircraft like MiG-29s, or I like to do some SEAD/DEAD. Fun? Hell yes! Realistic? Not at all. I can honestly say that beyond very, very basic things, I cannot think of any element of the DC that would actually be realistic training for a Viper driver. If ED's idea of "dynamic campaign" is one that the military would be interested in, then this should be a moment of clarity for us. I personally had a previous moment of clarity when I asked why ED couldn't guess a little bit to make otherwise unusable aircraft possible to simulate. The response was basically that anything made for the civilian market would be expected to a valid part of ED's portfolio for military contracts. If Evilbivol's understanding is correct, it would seem that a dynamic campaign is no different! :thumbup: EDIT: IMHO, EvilBivol-1's post should be a sticky on the general forum under the title "ED's philosophy on creating a dynamic campaign". :)

Puma provides the fastest performance. They make shoes for F1 drivers! :D

This is my only complaint. I'd like to remove Ukraine from red and set up the blue side as maybe Ukraine, USA, and Turkey, for example.

At 1680 x 1050, The UI might look a -little- stretched, but it isn't horrible and totally useable, even the mission editor. For the sim, you'll have to manually set the resolution in a config file as well as the aspect ratio. Once these are set, the sim runs perfectly fine widescreen and looks good.

It was more actually a more simplistic assumption on my part only looking at the pratical value of having 2 GPU cards. It is expensive, requires a mobo capable of supporting it, a PSU capable of supporting it and SPACE. Video cards are now officially of "ludicrous" size. They're larger than a VHS tape and they also weigh a ton. I have an 8800GTS and I thought THAT was large. Putting two 280/290s in a case would be like throwing in 2 size 12 (thats size 12 USA FYI ;) ) shoes.

Hey, just a thought here... Now that dual GPU cards are starting to be made, do you think single GPU cards are basically end of life cycle products now? Will they continue to be made? Would a dual GPU single card still have the quirks (like not working with BS and LOMAC) you find in SLI, or does having one card help? I was never a fan of SLI simply because it was impractical. I ultimately saw that eventually we'd have multiple GPUs on one card (worked for CPUs, right?). Now that they're starting to be made, I can't help but wonder if they'll be any improvement over SLI besides cost and less space taken up.

The depth perception I'm talking about is when you have a fighter sized object on an intercept course for yours. It isn't moving relative to your canopy. Its just a handful of greyish pixels out in the wide blue sky. It is hard to convey the image of something that large getting bigger as it gets closer to you.

Can you accomplish some of this with triggers? I have yet to give the triggers a good look-see, but I thought you could have different things happen randomly from a trigger? Like say you reach this point on the map and sometimes you find some tanks, sometimes you find some infantry, sometimes you find an F-16 on CAP trying to kill you. I'm thinking ultimately you may know what all the possibilities are, but if you put in enough, does it still matter? If you have 3 triggers like this in a given mission, you have lots of possibilities. You may know the counter to each one, but you still don't expect the order they'll happen. Maybe I'm wrong about how triggers work...