Feuerfalke

IMHO with Argentinia vs Mexico it was MUCH worse. While the others goals (or not) were a question of centimeters the offside was a matter of meters, the referee hat a clear view and the situation was not done in a split-second. And even worse: The replay on the stadium-screens clearly showed it was an offside-goal, but the referees refused to listen to the players and review the scene on the big screen. This really is a scandal and a confession of failure of the current referee-system. I'd really like to hear the discussion between those referees and what their reasons were to give that goal. :doh:

You missed the point of the actual discussion. As long as FC is being updated, it's quite okay with UBI for the reasons you named. But this method has the problem posted above, that LO/FC at some point may reach a point where the engine can no longer be updated to a DCS-compatibility. So the current discussion was about integrating the LockOn-Code into DCS to make the flyables from LO/FC available in future DCS-releases and overcome the problem described above. But this is most likely violating the contracts with UBI, hence my above post.

AUF JEDEN FALL! :thumbup:

Don't Walk...Run Away from the G940 Logitech G940 and Win 7 64 bit Blue Screen Logitech 5.09 G940 Thread Logitech G-940 :music_whistling:

I think there are many different aspects involved in this. Not only from the programmers or customers point of view, but also from the lawsuits. Let's not forget that UBISoft holds the rights with LockOn and that you still need to buy the UBI title to play FC2! If you take everything from LockOn and pack it into DCS, programmers and customers may be happy, but you may still run into some serious trouble with UBI. Just to throw in some additional thoughts.

Let me just answer with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrqLo5WJzlA And you should note that THIS goal DID make the difference between winning and loosing the game. ;) (Not saying that I find either decision understandable nor a sign of professionality of FIFA or the current referee-system)

No. The TM-Cougar has the stick as central unit. Throttle connects to the stick-base, optionally rudders can be plugged into the stick-base as well. The stick is connected via USB to the PC. In theory it would be possible to sell the Warthogs throttle alone as both units, the stick and the throttle will have their own USB-connectors. I bet this offer will come sooner or later, but I also bet that the price for the throttle alone will still be quite high.

Couldn't disagree more. In today's flight-simulators infantry is simulated by a rather bully guy, painted in dark greenish, standing on bright-green concrete. In BS you an see them from a mile away, depending on situation and lighting, but even in FC2 you see them much better than in real life because 1. the world is not made of green-painted concrete. It's grass, bushes and trees and even the desert has stones, rocks and dips in the sand infantry can hide in. 2. Don't expect to see an infantry-man in RL standing upright in the open field in a hostile environment. At least don't expect him to life long enough for you to spot him. 3. In RL the faster you go, the more blurred your peripheral vision is. Unless you know pretty exactly where you have to look and fly straight towards that location, spotting a human sized object is VERY hard for the human eye. Long story short: If you can see enemy infantry from a low-flying plane at 300kts+ from 100m+ you know you are in a simulation. I can show you pictures of infantry in the field from 10m away and you won't see them after 5 seconds of searching. And imagine you have like .5 seconds to make them out and engage, before they move or hide. You can waste your whole ammo, if you don't have an FAC in the area to call in your strikes.

We should also keep in mind that DCS is a different label that is undergoing a development in a different and more advanced direction. It's not just adding a new plane for the same engine. BlackShark was just the first of the DCS-modules released and already had a lot of improvements, most of them apparently could be ported back to FC to make them compatible. But even with BlackShark it was my impression, that the further this development goes, the more difficult it will be to keep this compatibility to non-DCS-products. I guess that at some point, a cut has to be made. So, I won't bet there will be a compatibility between A-10C and FC, but I'll keep my fingers crossed. :)

The limitation is due to the fact that this forum is also read by people who don't have a fency and speedy internet connection. There's no need to hammer their limited bandwidth with (for them) useless pictures. Besides that you can upload the pictures to ED's server. Of course they're putting up a reasonable limitation as well. After all, it's just a signature, not a poster. For DCS: BS they released an animated banner "Ka-50 Pilot" in different versions: These and more files are available for linking on the files -> misc list: Link If you'd like to have a signature, feel free to drop me a PM with an idea or concept and I'll try to send you a few suggestions ASAP.

No. That's two different questions. 64bit is the technology to use larger addresses for memory and transfer, which allows software to render more efficient and overcomes memory limitations. But a game still has to be multithreading to make native use of multiple cores. Multithreading very basically means, that the program is split up into different "tasks", each can be assigned to a different core. At the moment, DCS: BlackShark is already starting to become multithreading, as the sound-engine is a different "task" or "thread" than the core game. Another example would be Rise of Flight, which was designed for multithreading. In a limited fashion DX10 and above can also support multithreading for non-multithreading programs. It simply spreads the task over several CPUs. That's a performance boost for most games and systems, but it's just a workaround, not a true multithreading.

Pitty USA lost the game. I liked their teamwork, even in todays game, and how they manage to mobilize their last strengths to the point. Given they have virtually no soccer-stars in the European Leagues, they did very good. On the other hand, I'm happy to see an African Nation is still in the race for the title. That's really positive not only in Ghana, but for all Africa. I hope they win the next game as well.

Ich glaube so ist das überall, nicht nur bei diesem Patch. Und selbst wenn der Patch raus ist, kann ich die Versprechen, dass trotzdem mehr gemeckert wird, als gelobt. Das ist einfach so. Dafür haben auch alle im Team Verständnis. Aber manchmal kommen einfach viele Faktoren zusammen und dann geht es einfach nicht so schnell, wie man gerne möchte. @ golfsierra2: Da triffst du den Nagel auf den Kopf: Die Meinungen gehen sehr weit auseinander! Und ich finde es toll, dass es auch eine deutsche Version gibt und man dadurch die Freiheit hat zu wählen. Davon abgesehen glaube ich allerdings kaum, dass es dem Realismus zuträglich ist, wenn das Menü, die Missionsbeschreibung, der Editor, das Handbuch und alle Tooltips in original russisch gehalten wären. :) Genau genommen ist ja auch die englische Version bereits eine Übersetzung (Im Falle der Ka-50).

Very nicely done! IMHO the PNs from Ka-50 were really good, but they've come a long way since then and are really professional now, from both, looks and sound. Definitely looking forward to the next releases. Thanks and hats off, Wags! ( PS: And if I may add: It's not even July, yet! :D )

Ganz einfach: Weil man den deutsch-sprachigen Fans entgegen kommen wollte. Es wurde von Anfang an gesagt, dass es sich bei den Lokalisierungen um ein "Zusatzangebot" handelt und es war auch von Anfang an klar, dass diese lokalisierten Versionen mehr Zeit in Anspruch nehmen, als die russische Originalversion. Wenn ihr euch bitte kurz zurück erinnert: Selbst die englische Version ist erst eine ganze Weile nach der russischen veröffentlicht worden, mit weiterem Abstand dann die anderen Lokalisierungen. Ich kann natürlich verstehen, dass es ärgerlich ist, wenn man verschiedene Versionen online hat, die einen im Squad schon mit dem Patch fliegen, die anderen nicht. Aber dabei sollte man dann bitte auch nicht vergessen, dass diese Verzögerung bereits beim Release von DCS: Ka-50 sehr deutlich war und auch offen so diskutiert wurde. Die einzige gangbare Alternative zum Warten wäre also vermutlich, die Lokalisierungen komplett einzustellen und damit vielleicht den Spielern, die mit den komplexen englischen Texten und Missionen nicht so gut zurecht zu kommen, den Zugang zum Spiel deutlich zu erschweren. Möchtet ihr das lieber?

Even Oleg Maddox, crusader of the OpenGL-Technology has realized that it makes no sense to build a modern game on OpenGL and shifted to DirectX. Apparently the technology and development-tools for OpenGL has not developed as hoped, whereas DX10 and above turned out to bring more benefits than most players and producers expected.

Agreed 100%. You always pay a LOT more for a headset as compared to a set of equal headphones. And the crappy mic rarely compensates for that money. I have a Sennheiser PC 151 (early version) headset from a gamebundle and it's quite good, comparing sound and comfort. But when I really want to get the maximum out of my X-Fi for a longer time, I go for my Technics F880. The sound is clear in all ranges, great for music, stunning for gaming. The frequency goes down to 8Hz - well below audible range, but you definitely feel the difference compared to other headsets. Especially with the F880's large membrane (4cm+). No artificial vibration needed. :music_walkman: For communication I added a simple mic and added a mute-switch. Simple design, works great.

Honestly, I'd like to see this level of detail in the game it was designed for :devil_2: Well, anyway, I think that turbulences and propwash/vortex caused by other aircraft is the least I'd worry about in an A-10, as it will rarely fly in close pursuit of an other aircraft. On the other hand, we have a very deadly vortex ring state in Ka-50, so in theory it probably can be done in one way or the other. So... :dunno:

LOL - oh, yes. Incredible game. Imagine USA vs Italia: 85 minutes chess, 5 minutes action-soccer. :P

LOL - I got the feeling that quite a few teams have had a big party together, looking at their performance this year. We have bets running in our family, all games of the first phase. Funny thing is: The two people who by far have the most correct bets are the two who have no idea about football and the teams playing. In fact, they wrote down a list of results and just filled them in the list, not knowing who was even playing in the according game... LOL ...:doh:

It's almost spring in the southern hemisphere.

The A-10 carries A2A weapons. Sidewinders are A2A weapons.

It's not the point that flying a piston-engined plane is easier to fight with than a jet, it's the fact that IL2 and RoF, both even with CEM and complex DM do not model the complexity of flight. In both cases, it takes like 2 keystrokes at maximum to join the fight. Failures are minimal, some systems are not even modeled (like the legendary non-existing cooler of the Spitfire) or simply disabled in 99% of the MP-servers (Like engine warm-up or manual navigation). Just consider the P-47 would be modeled in IL2 as it is in A2A's P47 Razorback, with a 15min startup-procedure and warm-up, with keeping track of all these engine parameters manually while in combat, structural failures and jamming guns. Playernumbers using this setting probably would be as high (or rather low) as current playernumbers of DCS or LO/FC. And just to make it perfectly clear: I don't think that either simulation is better or worse. They just have different goals, a different focus and a completely different setting. So let's not compare apples and oranges.

You think other companies have different rules? You think that MS doesn't earn money from 3rd-Party developers making money with their product? It's much more likely that MS is simply more open, more renown, has more development tools, multiple tutorials and stuff to add planes, avionics, terrain and stuff, whereas LO/DCS remains a partially closed structure in some crucial areas. I also guess that sales numbers for FSX are a bit higher than that of DCS and as such a broader market is addressed with addons.