Inseckt

Sorry to chip in here, I don't have nearly as much relevant RL experience as others that are commenting, but if I may say so, I think that the brakes is not the real issue, it's grip. When anti-skid is ON, it exercises authority over braking input, not allowing braking to overstep the threshold for "locking" the tires, the point at which the grip can no longer support the amount of braking, right? Given that the sim where simulating better grip, that threshold should also move and allow more braking action, so it just seems to me like grip is the underlying issue. Decreased grip could perhaps also explain the sideways instability that some mention. Just my 2 cents for what it's worth... :) cheers!

I think it's called football, apparently it has become quite popular lately. seems like the objective is to deliver a ball on the adjacent side of the "field" using only your feet and/or head, and without being captured by the opponent team. It's quite lucrative, some of the best players make hundreds of dollars each month...

I've heard about the steering bars beeing bugged, but I want to ask, what is bugged about them? How are they supposed to work contra how they work now?

Indeed a bit off-topic, but just to nitpick: One of the important concepts of inference in statistics, is that for a sample to give a picture for the entire population, the sample MUST be random. Looking at a sample from the forum is not random and I could imagine it to be quite biased towards the end of users whom consider simming as a hobby rather than a "fun game" (which undoubtfully also exists...). So more advanced stat-tracking would give a more wholesome picture for the devs from a statistical perpective, but in all fairness, I couldn't see why they would need it anyway. I'm sure they already got some idea of what's out there:)

Go for 1111, it's pure gold!

hmm, would make sense, but I was certain I had previous issues with dropping CBU's on high terrain. But i guess it could be a misunderstanding on my behalf, in which case my next suspect would be sub munition drift after dispersion due to differing wind layers... When someone checks the track, I guess we'll know:)

I wouldn't be so sure, it was DCS that basically revealed the P-51 with it's "left over folder". DCS could be becoming so complex, it might soon become sentient and we could interrogate it for details of upcoming ED stuff:) :P

Check your HOF setting. They default to 1800 ft MSL, but if you try to drop them on targets that are above that altitude, you'll get this nothingness behavior... So make sure your HOF is a least 500 ft above the targets altitude:) BTW; HOF can be edited through the inventories page on the DSMS...

You are right, there's no user made terrain released yet. "ijozic" was probably being ironic when he used the term "overwhelmed". To my understanding it should be possible to delete objects from the DCS-world, but someone a bit more in the know should tell you how. I think speed might know how, you should send him a PM. But I don't think its possible to delete the terrain itself, the textures or roads/railroads... Though I cannot confirm this myself, If you manage to do something about it, perhaps you could prove us all wrong;) (with a well documented benchmark that is:))

Yeah, when we get our fighter, it's gonna get a bit claustrophobic in Georgia. As it already is with the fighters in FC. My wish for that time, would be to expand the map deep into mother Russia, only with some terrain building algorithm, and then only microbuild the major cities, and around important airports. This would sacrifice reality and accuracy, as I expect we will see with Nevada, for size and time to create. Plus when we get carrier ops, I would love an Atlantic map with just some limited coastline on both sides. :) :) :)

I absolutely understand paulrkii's "interrogation" of leroy. Whenever there is someone new who claim to have (in this case hugely) relevant experience, it's nice to have it confirmed before starting to absorb everything the person says like a sponge. It's even happened here on these forums, someone claimed to have certain RL experience, but turned out to be misleading others... It's a lot of weirdos on the web remember;) But that aside, I'm glad we have Leroy onboard, it's a huge asset to have input from actual pilots, and a former A-10 pilot is just gold! :)

DratsaB; Usually in DCS/LO/FC the problem is not memory. I see you have 4GB with W7x64. It should do fine memory-wise. If you have poor framerate, it's likely the CPU or in some cases the GPU, (it's never the APU), or if you have intermittent stuttering, it's likely your drive. Having less map elements in memory outside of that actually beeing rendered, would not aid the speed of CPU/GPU/APU/Drive. I might not understand this as well as I think, but I think you should concentrate on other aspects of increasing performance, like minimizing your OS footprint on the CPU, tweaking settings, get some extra RAM (if you are convinced it would help), overclock, etc etc... cheers

I have limited understanding of how the actual code works, but my intuitive understanding is that you fantastic idea, won't accomplish what it intends: From my intuitive understanding, it would only decrease load time by a small amount and have no considerable effect on in-game performance. At any one time, your computer only draws objects in a certain radius from your standpoint, at incrementally decreasing detail from the center. Meaning that your computer doesn't give a crap about models and textures and mesh at krasnodar when you're at batumi (except AI units I believe)

This is already quite possible with dynamic weather and has been demonstrated by someone here one this forum which worked out the kinks with the script. Except the fog that is... I have a dynamic weather template (created only by random generation luck) with mostly overcast weather in Georgia, when I flew to Lochini, i had clear skies on far approach, overcast at short approach, when I touched down, it was raining and when I taxied to parking area, it was heavy rain/snow precipitation. :) But I agree that it needs more, for instance fog integrated in the DM calculations, as well as turbulence, and other more exotic phenomenon like microbursts, icing conditions an so forth...

And indeed it's not true. The jammer does not "tie" in any way to the dispenser program, either in manual, semi or automatic setting....

Well, he did also mention dynamic campaign :P

Wasn't there already a mod for this in an earlier version? IIRC it used the now unused three-point-switch next to the indexer light brightness knob.... Perhaps it's possible to reintegrate this mod. It's probably still listed in user files... Edit: +1 for everything else....

I could be just the angle, but does the last picture look like an SU-27? Perhaps I'm blind, but I can't see the (whats it called?) forward airflow panels/mini wings? I thought SU-33 was the only fighter operated from Russian carriers... ? Ps. That's a beautiful pic of the viper:)

I only added the suggestion as a possibility, but as has been pointed out above, it seems highly unlikely if not impossible for this scenario. But if the range is short enough, surly an AMRAAM can "see" another? Even to the point where it is no longer regarded as noise? The probability of a random mid air collision between to relatively tiny missiles seems so far-fetched despite considering the "equalness" of the AI.... But as said before, track, or it didn't happen;) PS: Keep in mind that LO/FC/DCS missiles don't really know what a real missile can or cannot do...

If the 120 was fired without lock, it could have automatically locked up the incoming missile, or the same if it lost lock of the original target... I remember that I could on rear occasions pick up missiles on the radar back in fc1, so a 120 might possibly also be able too....

lol, Norris style :D

What a horribly grim picture on page 12 (Pdf document page 17)...:shocking: Caution: Do not get cut in half from the bottom up by the propeller..:doh:

Veering a bit OT here, but; I feel my NW touchdowns isn't as smooth is I would like. What is your strategy? There are several scenarios I have been applying: - After main gear touchdowns (hereafter "TD"), I try to "fly" the NW down by forward stick pressure. This is usually crude and uncontrollable and the NW often slams a bit hard to the tarmac.. - After TD, I apply some backwards stick pressure and let it naturally fall to the ground by itself. This is what I normally do today, but it can still be a bit rough, especially if the AOA is in the high end on TD. - Same as the above, but as the NW vertical speed component increases, I increase backwards stick pressure to slow it's descent. But this is hard to do and often leads to me overcompensating and taking the nose back up, often resulting in an even more rough NWTD... I bet I'm just being too sensitive about it, after all, it's not like the NW is made of cardboard, I guess it's just a finesse thing...

In the group "toolbar", (the sidebar active when tha group is selected), there is a timer entitled "start time". Set this timer to couple of days later than that of mission start. They will now activate at that time or when an activate group trigger is triggered....

So far, all is normal good, that is required. Why do you think so? If it is due to a lack of reply, consider this: - Not all radio calls warrant an AI reply, ie, abort inbound.. - Radio calls are limited by range, ground and atmospheric conditions.. - Make sure you press the correct mic switch, (there is one for each radio) Edit: ehh, ok, nevermind:doh: