Mars Exulte

Even ED said they didn't want or intend to do a subscription. If you want to support them, buy another module/campaign. If you have them all, donate to a friend. If you have no friends, donate to a rando on the forums. There, problem solved.

Su-75... Su-57. I just noticed they swapped the numbers. ''Privyet, tovarish! No like glorious S U 5 7? Is no problem! We have new special friend deal for you, more better plane we call S U 7 5! Chto? No, it just coincidence number flipped. Is all new and more better, I swear by Stalin's kidney stones!''

Aerodynamics is a finite science = there is a ''best'' way to design your aircraft dependent on its targeted mission profile (subsonic, high alpha, etc etc). The 1950s/60s era of experimentation and ''learning'' is long over. Aircraft are looking more and more similar because all the guesswork is gone and people choose a design which is beat suited for whatever they're needing the plane to do, which is often some variation of a ''blend'' to minimise disadvantages and maximise advantages. Likewise, radar emissions are a finite science : it works a certain way that is well understood. Virtually all military aircraft, even if not stealth persay, take design cues from it because there is no good reason to make your aircraft ridiculously visible and MANY reasons to minimise its signature. Waste time, money, and limited weight allowance on ''being stylish'' @@ Aircraft look sleek and fast not to be ''stylish'' but because it's actively conducive to being a high performance aircraft. Their ''style'' is an incidental byproduct of their design NOT a deliberate focal point, even in one off civilian designs practical considerations come first.

To be fair, every new generation of aircraft since the beginning ran over budget and had various teething issues, including most of the widely acclaimed ''classics''. That aside, I've said it before and I'll say it again : the STOVL F-35B was a stupid thing to do and is almost definitely responsible for the bulk of its development issues. Last thing I saw was some mockups/renders of a possible 6th gen hybrid ''optionally manned'' aircraft, but that's been a while.

China, too. They say some regions got a years worth of rain in three days, a lot of which fell in about an hour. Absolutely nothing, because I've invested my whole identity into denying there might be a problem and admitting there is a problem now would mean I was wrong.

Straight to the top AND bottom!

Yep, when it's in the shop for $59.95 THEN you can take it serious Anything before that is subject to change

They can do as they like, but if they start poking around Mars, we need a global intervention. Yeah, they do that a lot, see: their supercarrier, nuclear powered super cavitating torpedo, infantry powered armor, etc. I never had any idea wooden mockups and scale models were so lethal on the modern battlefield!

There's news articles about it. Google ''Russian stealth jet'' and it's literally the first thing that pops up. It's supposed to be revealed momentarily. Well, I don't work for Sukhoi or the Russian MoD (and presumably neither do you) so I'm going to go on a limb and say we're both ''reading stuff somewhere''. Yes? And? There are 10-12 of them at present, roughly half of which are non-flying testbeds or otherwise early development models. Four of them are capable of flight, afaik, and two have been deployed to combat to Syria (presumably the two serial production planes). These are facts, allowing for my count to be slightly off. India was originally a major partner in the development. They departed for two primary reasons : the Russians trying to stick them with the bill, and the plane not satisfying their requirements. This is also factual. After originally saying they were going to replace the MiGs and Sus outright, the Russians started chopping the order, eventually saying ''Oh, well, our fighters are so 1337 nobody can challenge them anyway, so what we have is good enough'' which is a publicly acceptable way of saying ''Goddammit, we're broke and nobody wants to buy this PoS''. There were supposed to be at least a few dozen of them by now, even with the order cuts... afaik no additional aircraft have been built yet, although some few dozen are on order. This is also all factual, although I'm prepared to be corrected if production has indeed actually resumed, I do not expect more than a handful to have been built even if so. It's a largely dead project. Unless there's something uniquely appealing about this new light fighter, it's likely to also end up a dead project. Current numbers: F-35 = 500ish, another 1000-1500 likely plus lots of foreign interest F-22 = 150ish J-20 = 150ish, another couple hundred likely . . . . . . . . . Unicorns = never seen . . Su-57 = 10-12 (but really only 2 because the testbeds don't count) with ??? ''ordered'' and no foreign interest whatsoever.

Which is not that long, especially considering the age of the game and the amount of effort it likely took to code. It can now likely be used to produce similar effects elsewhere, but that core technology is a relatively recent addition to the game (such things are not easy to do, nor will they be frequent additions).

I was referring more to the part where the Su-57 exists in the form of 10 protoypes (only part of which are flight capable) and 2 serial planes, rejected by India and generally struggling for funding and/or relevance in the world. I suppose they might be able to make a smaller, cheaper, ''lessons learned'' design palatable, but with everyone else of note making their own native stealth jets, they're likely to enter a crowded market and end up flopping around again.

I think they are planning on redoing some of the AAR mechanics, like collision model, bow wave, etc. It was only fairly recently we got wake/wash on the aircraft themselves

Ah, yes, what's even better than *one* dead end design? TWO dead end designs!

I don't think it's the universe that's out of balance =D

I noticed their AI is pretty good (as far as not being wonky, and they mentioned doing some stuff in the comments specifically to keep it from behaving retarded). I really wish ED would devote some real time to the AI, like REAL time, as it is one of the prime shortcomings in this software... or AT LEAST fix the UFO fms on stuff like the MiG-15 and F-5. It only takes tweaking a few lines in the lua to tone them down and they've been that way for *years*.

They think that because it's a dumb question. ED is a European compamy that, unsurprisingly, aligns their business hours accordingly. You cared so little you made an entire thread devoted to complaining about something with a painfully obvious answer. I believe this is called ''negging'', like, ''Oh well you won't answer my 47 calls, but screw you I went with another girl instead you aren't worth it''. A hallmark of ''nice guys'' and reasonable debate the world over. Or you could like... not wait to the last minute? Or like... understand it's nobody's responsibility to cater to you personally? If it was ''8pm'' instead of ''midday'', you'd be complaining ''why couldn't you wait till midnight, it was only four more hours!'' or ''why did you end it midweek I get paid on Friday!'' Or ''why did you end it mid month, I get paid on 20th just a few days later''. People make these ridiculous posts every sale. It was a complaint, not a question. Thus the ''this is foolish'' remark. If only they would hire you to do their marketing for them, By Grabthor's Hammer think of the savings! There's literally always a ''last minute'' and people like you will always complain when their tardiness or inattention results in them missing something. Irrelevant *families. Also, irrelevant. Nobody cares. Waiting to the last minute is a sign of procrastination and poor judgment, nothing else. Everybody is busy. You're not special. See above. No, people don't necessarily jump onboard with every senseless complaint. You're more than welcome to participate in the community. But this isn't exactly a productive way to go about it, and nobdoy think's you deserve special consideration, nor does your country deserve special consideration.

Splitting the low-fi stuff off from the main game IS the whole point. DCS would be a study sim with relatively small population, and MAC would end up being a much larger, more casual oriented community. They're only part of the same game NOW because it was an easy way to flesh out the number of aircract back when FC3 accounted for 90% of them. Nowadays the library is extensive enough there's no need to mix the low and hi fi modules like that. It's not that simple now. It's a $60-80 purchase, not ''game modes'' ala War Thunder's drop down menu. That's the whole point once again, they weren't ever really INTENDED to be one game as it is, FC3 is the leftover bits of DCS predecessor. MAC is reusing assets from hi-fi modules (thereby saving a lot of time and development expense) to make a more publicly appealing ''flight sim'' more akin to the older games of our youth (with enhanced graphics and expanded features, obviously). MAC effectively allows them to double dip into two different communities of gamers, while spending comparatively little on the dev cycle.

Our aircraft have little to no commonality with BoB era planes besides vague silhouette. Using the 109 as my primary example : different engine, different weapons in different locations, far heavier, different radios, completely different airframe and aerodynamics (the K is MUCH sleeker and more refined than the E), if it's an E-3 than it doesn't even have a prop governor. I don't know a *whole* lot about the differences between the Spitfires, but I'm sure it's more than superficial.

Last I heard DCS World is intended to be the core for full fidelity modules, and MAC is intended to be an entirely separate product with lower fidelity modules so the two do not mix. What ''doesn't make sense'' about that? One is for the hardcore community, and one is aimed at something more like the Il-2/ War Thunder crowd. This is likely, I'd say, as FC3 has its core from 15 years ago or so, things have changed a lot since then, including DCS. Low-fi is not a guaranteed bypass for ''lack of information'' or ''lack of licensing/permission''. In particular, even FC3 aircraft have fully developed professional flight models (just like the full fi planes do) so we're not talking THAT much compromise. They're still going to need/want reems and reems of data. It's just the intricacies of the MFDs, radio, and complex avionics may be glossed over or bypassed.

Xilon, the planes we have are not from the Battle of Britain (which occurred in 1940). The planes we have are from Normandy/D-Day era approximately (1944ish). BoB planes would be Spitfire Mk Is and Hurricanes on the British side and the Bf-109E on the German side. What we have are Spitfire Mk IXs and Bf-109Ks (not to mention the late war P-51D and P-47D).

Yep. As for tracking telemetry and invasion of privacy, that's gonna be a ''voter'' issue. Don't vote for corporate suckups and push for the same kind of privacy and consumer laws available in Europe. -edit Also, screw Linux.

Those other projects are mostly busy work for their 3d artists who would likely otherwise be unemployed. It's not ''anything'' for the DCS community. They haven't taken any money, you're not out anything and neither is anybody else. Them doing stuff on the side while people are impatiently complaining about it on the forums is more a testament to individual maturity than their business model. I expect none at the moment, considering they have mostly been focused on wrapping up the Harrier, M2000, and MiG-19 (which afaik are mostly all in final stages). Their next focus looks to be on the Strike Eagle and MiG-23. Anything's possible. All another company has to do is choose to pursue that aircraft, it's not up to Razbam what other companies do or don't develop. Most of them are occupied with their own projects, and have the distinct pleasure of listening to their own little micro communities complain about 'what's taking so long for *insert*'

Windows Task Manager is in fact NOT anything to go by, especially if you're trying to troubleshoot something nitpicky like CPU usage per core or something like this. It is a generic half-assed utility, and for example, does not account for how Windows itself shuffles the load between cores dynamically at the rate of dozens of times per second. It is useless for troubleshooting, and that bit about it showing 40-60% core usage is absolutely inaccurate (it basically displays ''averages''). This has been hashed out a few hundred times on these very forums. While DCS does not utilise more than two cores due to its age, it DOES utilise those cores and it has nothing to do with ''spaghetti code'' (at least in this context). In particular you're describing two similar systems with a noticeable performance disparity that probably shouldn't exist... by definition that's on YOU the operator's end, NOT the software. Also, you mentioned the ''higher overclock'', a common misconception is that ''moar hurtz'' is automatically better, and that's not necessarily the case. There are a great many things that can contribute to high CPU latency. While in general I agree replacing your RAM is itself probably not worth it compared to the cost, numerous ''little things'' like that can soon add up in combination together and that's most likely what you're encountering : a series of inefficiencies or minor issues, drivers, etc gradually accumulating until you've got a noticeable discrepancy.

#1 use search. This is a well worn topic and you can find the issues bandied about thoroughly. In short it's not about ''classification'', and never has been. It's about needing licensing and permission from the manufacturer and government, which is difficult to get from Russia. See, this is the real world, and they have real laws they have to contend with just like every other company, and none of these companies give a rats A about our video game hobby. No, because it's not about that. Again, it's not about classification, you need the owner's permission, and you need actual ready access to technical information on the aircraft itself. That is literally anti-thetical to the whole concept behind DCS. You have now discovered the one thing that is not a core focus of the game : air quake. That said, competitive air quake does not require representative aircraft from Russia to work, it just needs a (preferably) variety of roughly comparable aircraft... which it has. If you're so ready to throw out the core simulation principle driving DCS entire MO, then it shouldn't be that big a leap to use a stand in aircraft either. Again, that's counter to the entire concept of DCS to wholesale ''make stuff up''. It also doesn't get around needing manufacturer and government permission, which is again, not particularly forthcoming. Whether you like it or not (or understand it or not), politics and commercial law are both influences on the situation. True, and there's not a whole helluva lot to be done about it right now. Deka are supposedly considering a Chinese Su-30 variant, IF they can get data, and IF they can get permission. Again, political and commercial realities because the government and industry do not really care about hobbiests. -edit In case you don't think these are really factors, poke around a bit for the multiple instances of people and/or ED getting tangled up in legal issues with various Ministries of Defense even from NATO countries. It IS an issue, those people ARE aware of DCS and they DO watch them closely.

I wasn't hostile. What do you want, fireworks and a song? I responded to the OP, ie what the thread is actually about, I don't really care what 47 other people's thoughts on the same thing are, I was commenting MY thoughts.