Jump to content

Mars Exulte

Members
  • Posts

    4717
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Mars Exulte

  1. It's always fun to watch you two argue in circles =) In a past life you must've been married.
  2. I always enjoy the tryhards trying to micromanage how people play the game in the interest of ''PvP BALANZE!''... jesus. It's a video game, and 90% of what people do are workarounds for real life hardware limitations. You're not a real fighter pilot, no mtter how much you gimp yourself (or others) in the mock pursuit of REALIZM. It's a vidoe game, and we're all gamers (even the ones that are rl fighter pilots).
  3. As far as in essence, it's possible, I mean some are designed specifically with shooting other munitions down as an option (TOR for example, also Patriot and S-300+) many of which are high speed. It's just not something that occurs often. As far as SAMs intercepting SAMs fired at a strike package, the time/distance involved would make this impractical unless on a very local scale that circumstances just happened to line up to make it possible. What would probably be more feasible would be the strike package itself shooting down incoming missiles, provided they detected them early enough to do so.
  4. I used to primary the Harrier. During hover, maneuvers are performed with RCS thrusters on the nose, tail, and wingtips. They don't have much power, so if you're moving very fast, in bad weather, roll too far, etc, they simply don't have thrust to counter it. If you mean during forward flight, the Harrier's wingshape and profile give it some unique handling characteristics compared to the more typical fighter layout. This can be dependent on specifics. Very close to the ground or carrier deck, you get into ground effect, which is basically the blast off your engines billowing back up into your aircraft. There are several important things to consider : #1 Face into the wind whenever practical, otherwise you'll intake hot exhaust gases and lose power. Also, disregarding THAT, windspeed contributes to lift or substracts from it. If you are moving forward at 40kts, with a 20kt headwind, your lift is equivalent to 60kts over the wing. If you turn around, now you subtract that 20kts, leaving you with equivalent of 20kts worth of lift. That's a pretty big difference, and will definitely affect your sink/climb rate. #2 When hovering, always have your gear deployed. Those vanes on the belly are intended to catch the ground effect. When you deploy your gear, look closely and you'll see additional vanes deploy to further enhance the effect. If I remember correctly, it's a difference equivalent to about 1000-1100lbs of thrust, which is pretty significant. If you don't have your gear deployed, or raise them while still hovering, you are missing a substantial amount of boost. #3 Do not hover very high off the ground. Ground effect reaches it's peak around 20ft agl, and tapers off very quickly above that. This leads to #4 #4 When performing VTOL on a ship, be very aware of the sides. The ship itself is relatively tall, and if you slip over the edge, you just went from 20ft agl to 100+ and lost the ground effect boost mentioned previously, very possibly causing you to start dropping. It is and it isn't. You have to be aware of what your doing and what the environment is. Something helpful : on your HSI it also displays windspeed and direction Another common thing is fiddling with the thrust nozzles during a hover. I used to be an advocate of trying to hold the nose level while adjusting the nozzles. Don't. Just... don't. It greatly increases the mental and physical workload and serves absolutely no beneficial purpose. Set the goddamn nozzles (usually this will be 82 degrees with nose level) and then fly it like a helicopter as necessary. If windspeeds are really high or the ship is moving particularly fast, you may need to adjust them for slightly more forward thrust, but regardless, once set, don't touch them again. Lastly, when touching down, don't engage in foreplay, just get it over with. Ground effect gets stronger the lower you get, and you don't want to settle with power or you'll find yourself rolling around the deck or drifting all over six foot off the ground. Establish a stable hover in full ground effect 20ish ft off the ground, chop your throttle back to begin descending smoothly, and in the last split second before touchdown cut throttle completely and apply full brakes. You should plunk down firmly, with idle engines and brakes. Watch the professionals in RL, it often bounces slightly when they set it down = firm landing.
  5. I have all of them except the Mosquito (want), Christen Eagle (no want), and a handful of campaigns that didn't look interesting.
  6. Havok is Mi-28. Ka-50 is either Black Shark (official) Hokum (NATO) Werewolf (original nickname afaik)
  7. The S-125 is called Neva, aka SA-3 Goa in NATO parlance. As for V-625 specifically, it appears only a few test units were produced before the project was aborted due to the aforementioned manufacturing flaws. SA-3s are in use today, afaik, so further development certainly took place.
  8. We don't talk about that sort of thing around here
  9. -edit It's an S-125 variant. Undeveloped prototype. https://historykpvo-2.ucoz.ru/index/0-13 '' From the book of Mikhail Pervov "Anti-aircraft missile weapons of the country's air defense": The missile under the index 625 for the 125th complex was developed in the design bureau under the leadership of M.G. Ollo. In the design of the rocket, a solid propellant sustainer engine was used for the first time. Station tests and autonomous missile launches were carried out in Kapyar. Difficulties arose at the stage of complex testing. When launching missiles, it was not possible to get into a given sector of the radar - each time the rocket left the given point for a considerable distance. Conducted ten unsuccessful launches. For a long time they searched for the cause, but did not find it. The situation was getting critical." The experimental sample included a missile guidance station with an antenna post, two-rocket launchers and a 625 solid-propellant rocket. Tests of the guidance station went well. However, missile tests have stalled. At the very first launches of the 625th rocket, we encountered an incomprehensible phenomenon: the rocket constantly left the sector of responsibility to the left. We tried many options to keep it in the sector: we put mechanical programmers into the system of control commands, carried out all kinds of manipulations with the angles of shooting into the sector ... Nothing helped! Not a single firing in a closed control loop could be carried out. The missile was returned to the factory for revision." In 1959, Ollo brought several modified rockets to the test site. As it turned out, the reason for the unsuccessful launches was simple. On the drawing of the docking cone of the first and second stages, the vertical dimension of the cone was indicated on one side as 558 mm, and on the other side as 553 mm, although both dimensions should be the same. Someone, by mistake, wrote a three instead of an eight, as a result, the cone turned out to be "curved" during manufacture, and the rocket - "curved". The difference of five millimeters was not noticeable to the eye, but invariably manifested itself in flight. This insignificant oversight led to the failure of the tests. The work of a large team of designers, workers, testers and huge material resources were spent in vain.''
  10. Generally speaking, unless you're running a real potato recording is not that demanding. Drive space can be an issue, if you're using something uncompressed like FRAPS. Also, processing and upload times when your video is finally ready. Here in the US, upload bandwidth usually sucks balls and it takes FOREVER to upload something so I usually do 1080p for THAT reason.
  11. Personally, there's not a gigantic difference between performance these days like a few gen ago. I have a 6700k now and used to use a 8350FX as you did. With Intel you know they're going to use a different socket every time to force you buy a new motherboard, with AMD you'll probably have the option of at least a few upgrades of reusability out of a given motherboard, which imo is more helpful these days. I'll be doing my own upgrade later this year as the supply issues seem to be easing. I plan on doing a full rebuild, though, as it's been 6+ years for me, so I'm thinking probably AMD cpu, 4080/or whatever they end up calling it, and 64gb of either DDR4/5 depending on prices. That should also bump my performance up to finally properly make use of the G2 I have (on that note, if anybody wants a Rift S in the US&A, hit me up)
  12. I'm with you. At this point, small groups need to be organised around a specific aircraft or theme, and that's pretty much that. At the end of the day, it's no different than anything else. You need to have a clear idea what you want to do and seek a group/server that suits your needs, not pop in at random and expect everyone to cater to you or make everything so open ended you can clumsily fit in. If you don't know what you want, probably need to focus on figuring that out first.
  13. The GPUs all come from the same place : Nvidia. They aren't manufacturing them themselves. The only major difference is the superficial appearance, manner of cooling, and whether or not it's already overclocked. There is literally nothing stopping you from buying the cheapest, ''<profanity>tiest'' GPU and overclocking it to the same level as a Asus ROG except the ability of the onboard cooler to handle the extra heat and the usual 'silicon lottery'.
  14. Gradual accumulation of bloatware. Every time you install a program and it loads on a bootup (stuff like Soundblaster, Asus software, Discord, Steam, etc etc etc) each of those fractionally increases boot up for Windows. Get enough of them, it becomes measurable. Additionally, Windows itself routinely installs bloatware when it updates (thus me generally disabling them and doing only periodic updates). I'd suggest going through processes, task scheduler, and any software you have running and trimming it dowm to essentials. 90% of the crap people let run in the background (or that software wants to run in the background like updaters, etc) don't NEED to run. And maybe find ya a debloater for Windows.
  15. Is it still supposed to be multiplayer capable? I haven't been following the SE too closely, and lost track of what it is/isn't Nvm, found the FAQ. Yes, it will be.
  16. @SkateZilla You're hardcore with that GPS tag. The Liam Neeson of customer service. ''I WILL return you.''
  17. Has to be done in windows device manager too for the usb hubs/controllers/ports. Been there done this. Windows powering off your <profanity> to ''save energy'' is absolutely an issue.
  18. I've used gaming laptops ranging from a 680 (back when that was new and impressive sounding) to a 2060 (recently purchased) and it works just fine. If you're cooking them, it's either a poor design (emphasis on being thin and light) or the airflow is being cut off and/or ambient temp is way too high. For light gaming, you don't have to worry, but if you're running something intensive that is pushing it, you need a dedicated cooler unit. You also, ideally, should focus on a design that has good airflow (ie relatively thick/large). Treat it less like a "laptop" (because it's not for light office work) and more like "a more portable desktop" that you carry with you, plug into a wall on a desk, and leave it there for the duration of usage. https://www.amazon.com/HV-F2056-15-6-17-Laptop-Cooler-Cooling/dp/B00NNMB3KS Something like this is better than nothing, but ideally find a design with fans you can position directly under the intakes to help force air through the case. And never set it on a fabric/soft surface that can squish up into the vents or otherwise restrict airflow. Airflow is literally life, restricting it is literally death.
  19. Just use the regular font. The AI won't be able to use it. You need the SDK for maps and most other stuff, and it is not publicly available. You can attempt making skins, textures, or simple AI units and 3d models, though.
  20. Can you remember this is a video game and treat your entertainment accordingly?
  21. Reading this thread nearly gave me an aneurysm. It wasn't full blown, just a faint tingling behind the eyes.
  22. No idea. You can follow progress in this thread for updates, also the developer's name is ''Flying Iron Simulations''. You can read their devblogs there, too, as well as updates with PrickleyHedgehog on YouTube and Silver Dragon's Roadmap here in the forums.
  23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7_Corsair_II?wprov=sfla1 I would say with high certainty that's an A-7. You'll be glad to know it's coming to DCS soon.
  24. I wouldn't overthink it. It's the same legalese used in 99.9% of stuff, and exists mostly to protect against lawsuits if DCS does/says something a manufacturer doesn't like or vice versa. It's just a generic ''don't sue me, bro''.
  25. @syzygy You're asking for a behind the scenes ''factory floor'' view of module development. There's not a huge amount of stuff like that around here, but it is available if you look around. Pay special attention to stickied dev posts on specific aircraft. I remember the F-14 had a devblog that went into great detail on how they modeled the radar, and some other devs made extensive posts also. I tried to find some for you, but they're buried in the forum somewhere and I am having trouble locating them. But they're there. There were some extensive posts on the P-47 and F-4U also at different times. I think the Jf-17 did, too. In short, they try to model as much of the function as possible, but as others pointed out, most of this is invisible to you for practical purposes. A circuit breaker may be simulated performing its function, for example, but the actual physical circuit isn't, it'a just ''in the computer's head'', as it were. Another example of details that are simulated is with the MiG-15. Due to inferior machining in the real world Soviet Union, the wings were not EXACTLY symmetrical, which tended to produce a slight roll at transonic speeds either to left or right. This is replicated in DCS and everytime you spawn a MiG-15 it is randomised which direction it will roll (and is a leading cause of ''bug reports'' for the MiG-15). Other examples include fuel sloshing in wings, individual fuel tanks draining at different rates, etc. They do not ACTUALLY replicate liquid in the wings as something you could see poking your camera inside it, merely the effects as if there is liquid there. The extent and specific focus of simulation varies from module to module and dev to dev. The WWII birds place a premium on engine management as that's a key aspect of their flight, so fuel flow, radiator dynamics, oil, etc etc, are all much more detailed in them because you interact with it so much and it's such a key element with them. Some aircraft go to great length detailing radar and avionics, for example the F-14, if I remember right from the old devblogs, uses a form of raycasting to emulate the radar waves. Again, most of this stuff is happening strictly in a mathematics sense, it's there, as far as the effects you have to deal with, even if it's not being physically directly replicated.
×
×
  • Create New...