sinelnic

Ah great news then!!! I´m looking for the actual dimensions, diameter, of at least one gauge or instrument on the real Ka-50 cockpit. For example the real diameter of the VSI gauge. Of course if you had full cockpit blueprints wouldn´t hurt either... Thanks!!!

Здравствуйте, Я прошу прощения за мой плохой русский, это Google Translation. Я ищу диаметр по крайней мере одного датчика или документа о кабине BlackShark, может кто-нибудь помогать мне? Большое спасибо!

@Dooooooooom Your answer is right here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=584093&postcount=6

1- About close up LODing as you mention, try Orbx scenery for MSFSX, it´s the best that has been done. There are two limitations: 1, you need constant texture and object streaming streaming for the various LODs (aircrafts move much faster than humans) which is taxed by the CPU, GPU and hard drive bandwith capabilities. 2, you need to actually have created all those effects, varied enough to include different kind of asphalt, grass, dirt, bushes, houses, whatever, and have correctly placed them manually in the virtual world. Orbx does this for specific airports and/or locations, and takes them quite a while to pull through. 2- In an FPS you´re always very close to buildings, 1 or two meter away. In a FS you´re always about one hundred meters from anything, unless you´re about to crash. 3- To get a correct, 1:1 scale display of the virtual world, the FOV you have to use barely extends the HUD. Make the calculation, it´s: FOV = 2 * inv sen (screen width in cm / 2 / distance from eyes to monitor)

I think my sarcasm got lost filtered by my ISP... that was exactly my point. I fly about once a week, and I have to repeat myself, the DCS engine is by far the closest to transmit the overall feeling of looking at the world from the sky. In my personal experience, the desire for a better representation of the objects comes from having a very confined view when using a single monitor. You have a very little window into the virtual world, so you focus on every detail. I recently upgraded to multiple screens and finally I can perceive, for instance, a full mountain instead of just some ground covering half my screen. That by itself transforms the experience completely, I find myself automatically filling the remaining gaps (lack of texture detail, lack of incremental detail) and enjoying the flight and the fight much much more. A graphics engine is a "foundation" on which you must put content on. In the case of Crysis, it's the monumental effort on individual shader effects and handcrafted level creation that gives it the magnificent look. If you only had three tree models, and a generic world derived from an elevation and landclassing map, you'd immediately begin to feel the artificiality on it. Hell, I played the game, and found that about 2 hours into it. It is nevertheless very powerful, but its magic does not come from the engine but from the ammount of work put into details. I would love to see the same effort put into DCS, but you have to understand it would take a very different form. A very clever shader program to use bump mapping to simulate carvings on a rock, or volumetric tree shadows or underwater refraction, has absolutely no use in a flight simulator. Employing some shader wizardry to more accurately display the shine of a city in the distance, or better and more varied clouds, or complex overcast, or extensive LODing and bumpmapping at short distances would be great but you'd never get that just from using CryEngine, but from having coders and artists dedicated to creating that specific detail. Hence, what ED needs is more money, not CryEngine. I crave for multithreading, though, only because of performance, since the engine really suffers of CPU bottlenecking with its current level of detail. Yes, I want to use full shadows and effects and water with three monitors, and I think I have the hardware for it. But heck, I'll survive.

Yeah... Considering ED hasn't yet implemented multicore support, I believe your DX11 card money can be better invested in multiple monitors, which can give you a much richer and realistic experience as soon as today.

Ok, just to demistify, here's what Cryengine 2 can do for a flight sim. Beware! this can be shocking! http://www.crymod.com/uploads/mediapool/20090901FA/3.jpg As I said above, the nice detail that CryEngine can produce goes to the absolute toilet as soon as you leave the ground. Creating a beautifully looking engine for flight simulation is done using completely different techniques.

Uhm... if you're diving into a Shilka, you shouldn't take much pride on Human Intelligence methinks...

Just for the record, Amalahama is talking about the Spanish that is spoken in Spain, because I say "Cerveza" with an 'S' (at least the first one, the rest become more 'Z', or even 'ZZZZZZ'). I could also add that the letter C derives from the greek Gamma and used to have the 'G' sound in early Italy. As for Latin, it wasn't made from the ground up but it adopted other languages's words as the empire grew, so you get a 'c' pronounced as 's' as a rarity. BTW, what language has a unique sound for the character "C"?

Cyberdine's engine for the flying Terminator? Yes!

Also, Cryengine is not designed to provide credible visuals for med-high altitude, 30Km radius' scenery, which is basically atmospheric effects and clever, non-tiling texturing. So at more than 1-2Km you get an image as awful as ARMA II's terrain at 5-10Km.

If I'm not mistaken, there's no "C" in Russian, that character is pronounced S, and that's enough symbol for the sibilant sound. So right now I realize it's completely impossible that DCS is programmed in C, or the aberration C++. C simply does not exist.

I would wish for the option to have only the HMS respond to TrackIR, i.e. leaving the cockpit static. That would be nice for us lucky enough to have multi-monitor setup, and a must for dome-like projection systems that are probably used in ED's military contracts.

Señor Halcón de Fuego, where can I find such report?

You have a point, maybe I should have written "If they make this reliable at all, it would be truly remarkable". My point though, is not about the manufacturing process, but rather the design, integration and testing of all components up to the required reliability standards. I have no doubt that it can be theoretically done, my concern is at what point the costs of doing so are no longer bearable, and what happens when that point is reached.

Also, there's that mysterious LO:FC "new product" they keep not talking about...

So you push one button and get VTOL. How on earth are they going to manage to make all this technology, coming from different vendors around the world, reliable at all?

An associated question (as you can see I'm a terrible newbie in BVR): how dependent is missile range in BVR to the speed of the launching A/C, assuming frontal engagement? Maybe you can point me to some literature on the subject?

It was the last war fought with propeller (not proper) airplanes :cry: Also, it is called the football (or soccer) war because of this: Both countries' military governments were in the mood for some fighting, but the people couldn't care less (both countries have beautiful, sunny beaches, nice women, rum... what's there to fight for?). The perfect excuse came when Honduras faced El Salvador in eliminatory rounds for the Mexico '70 World Cup qualifiers. The first match was won at home by Honduras 1-0, but at the secong leg, El Salvador won 3-0 and apparently the local hooligans were a bit disrespectful to the defeated party, which triggered brutal riots at and outside the stadium. A third match was due, but by that time the politicians had created the mood for an open conflict. El Salvador won 3-2 and a couple of days later, invaded Honduras. The war lasted 5 days and left a couple thousand deaths, of course, mainly civilians. So sad...

Why can't the missile turn before starting its engine? It's already flying at the speed of the launching A/C...

Oh Mr Topol, much obliged! Mind if I do accept your generous offer, since I took the time to already post a question (about the ridiculous war on this same page), and it would be a shame to let that effort be wasted, now wouldn't it?

Well indeed, only this one was a british airship, the R80, and the strange gondola "bullet-shape" seems unique to this model only. You're a naughty boy, Namenlos! Now, this plane, took part in a rather ridiculous war. The question is, what is the milestone this war meant for aviation? [Edit] Arrgh! this happens because I took the time to research the next question.

I followed your hunch but the carts tend to have a different shape... I'm researching seaplanes right now... dang this is hard!

"Receiving the type designation S-14, this Fokker was in fact the first jet-trainer in the world designed as such." I need to sleep... would somebody be kind enough to post the new question?

Perfect! Pulqui "I" actually, we made a second attempt and then died of success... Your turn sir!