Mars Exulte

Hours etc are in a text file in the saved games directory. You can edit it by hand if you want to. It shouldn't affect it. I don't bother with multiple installs, btw. Skate's GUI ftw, lets you switch back and forth easily. Most the time, unless there's a new map in beta or something major (like 2.7) it doesn't take much to switch. If you're blessed with good internet speeds, may not matter much even then.

M.2 is a form factor. NVMe and SATA drives both come in M.2 form. SATA you probably won't need one, NVMe, you might. They're cheap enough and easy to install, so no big deal. A lot of motherboards come with one or two these days. My brother's motherboard was camo patterned, and had one on it which we stupidly overlooked for sometime @@ You could easily just not use it, though, if you had a aftermarket one.

Really? You missed the whole phase where people were griefing servers by using an exploit to slam planes into airfields from extreme altitude and render them unusable? That you've been living under a rock in no way means this community doesn't have the same griefer/cheater tendencies literally every game ever created has. The high cost of entry probably does more to lower prevalence than anything else, but it absolutely still happens. -edit Btw, looks like this guy is modding weapons, so I'm 100% certain other people can, too. You maybe can't tweak the values of existing weapons, but that's easily worked around by modding new ones in, copying the old stuff, and tweaking it to your liking.

I've never described DCS to someone, or shown them my simpit, and them not be extremely positive. My wife (who grew up in a strictish old fashioned family) gave me a lot of grief about being ''a grown man playing games'' when we first met, until I recorded a lengthy sortie for her (and she saw my simpit). Tldr her opinion changed.

It is, and it's not even about just English. A Scotsman and an American sound absolutely nothing alike, even though they may both be speaking ''English''. Windows works with ''American English'', being an American developer basically, but even then you have to spend a fair piece of time ''training'' it to your voice. I'm an American, speaking American English, but I found out immediately as a Texan, it was different enough it couldn't reliably understand me. Developers love to cut corners, and spending this much time on something 90% of people aren't going to set up properly and then flood their forums with complaints is probably not most companies' idea of a good investment of time. Vaicomm ''works'' because it requires enough effort to set up that only somebody really dedicated gets that far, and the DCS custom voice pack does all of the footwork for you. Besides, what's the issue with using Vaicomm? We have 3rd party aircraft, 3rd party terrains, TacView is a 3rd party utility. Why is Vaicomm somehow ''not good enough''? It's an externally developed plugin that does the job quite perfectly. It's not going to ''benefit'' much from ED developing their own solution, in the way that ED's replacement for SRS is likely to streamline and improve functionality and features.

This is basically a Turkish propaganda video ''look how we chased off the Greeks'' Notice he peaks at less than 4g, is at 2g most the time. They are maneuvering gently onto non-maneuvering Greeks while excitedly shouting tacticool phrases for the audience's benefit. It's really easy to get a guns track on somebody that is completely ignoring you.

Just to throw in a point I have yet to see actually mentioned. Something you guys need to keep in mind when talking about R-60s/Sidewinders on helos. An AAM on a helo does not equal a AAM on a jet. You are going to be flying much slower, much lower, firing at a receding target flying 3-4x your speed or more. This will severely reduce the accuracy and speed of your missile, and as a result its overall effectiveness. If you are thinking somehow a heater is going to let you blunder around in the open without friendly air cover, you're going to be reallllllly disappointed. All that stuff you read about ''helos get air kills against fighters'' presupposes two things : #1, most importantly, the helo is not blundering around like an idiot, and #2 that the fighter's RoEs prohibit using BVR missiles on it. Online #1 is extremely common #2 is not a factor #3 helos get repeatedly molested

Yes to improved G strain modeling and yes to something resembling stamina so you cannot pull high g maneuvers forever without your pilot eventually tiring. No to... all this other weird crap people are suggesting. I can't believe people actually would suggest War Thunder's idiotic skill system here with a straight face (it works more or less exactly like is being suggested here).

*yawn* Oh look, somebody missed the point of literally everything I said. It's almost like I wasted a considerable amount of time trying to reason with min-maxers @@ Whatever, you're all right, I'm wrong. Hornet is teh best, all hail the bug, ED are wasting their time and only the all mighty flat turn determines success or failure. Every small penised country that didn't buy a Hornet is a dirty scrub certain to feed kills to the mighty, well endowed nations that fly Hornets and perform majestic unconquerable maneuver of turning left or right.

I disagree. The box the pilot sits in is an influence, but no the Hornet is not the ''I win'' button you guys seem to think it is. Against noobs that don't know how to fight it, sure, but the more experienced the pilots get, the less that's going to happen. Entirely possible, but again, as long as the disparity between two planes is not ''insurmountably huge'' it's not THAT significant of an influence. People aren't losing fights over a degree or two a second. Not even talking about the Viper specifically, but literally ''turn fight vs energy fight''. It doesn't matter what the planes are. You shouldn't be fighting your opponents greatest strength with your greatest weakness.

Yeah, of course. I'm not meaning to say it's all that easy, because it's not, my stance is merely that turning alone will not automatically win the fight and that worked right, a higher T/W is equally as useful. If dissimilar aircraft were incapable of defeating each other, there wouldn't be as much variety in the world. As lomg as the opponents are approximately comparable, a few % plus or minus is extremely unlikely to be the deciding factor. Yeah, of course, add in missiles and none of this matters hardly. The tournaments and duels are almost always 1v1 guns only stuff, though, which is what I thought we were mainly discussing. As for dueling, I'd love to once I'm able to set my rig back up. Tldr, everything is in storage and I literally live on the job these days. Hopefully this summer that all changes. I want to get in on the tournament scene 100%.

I have hardly ever had an argument with someone on the internet that didn't end up claiming to be the foremost authority on whatever it was we were talking about. It's just internet stuff, people are full of shite, etc. Ah, the ''instagram influencer'' mentality. That's a cancerous development in society if ever there was one. I've done some RC flying (I have a foam BF-109G with 50'' wingspan). It's not harder or even all that different, your controls are the same and it flies more or less the same. It's just perspective and relative speed is so different. It's really hard to tell its orientation, especially from a few hundred feet, and while ''60-70mph'' doesn't sound like a lot, for a four foot plane it's really whizzing around. Adjusted for scale... yeah, that's pretty damn fast, and you'll be out of view or radio range in seconds (or in a tree or building). Some of the faster ones easily exceed 100mph.

You're correct, the Hornet is most popular. It favors low speed turn fighting which the majority of people also favor turn fighting. Its FCS also does a lot to prevent loss of control or over G, making it to a large degree idiot proof. Anybody can fly a Hornet and be a credible threat provided the opponent engages in a low speed turning fight. Energy fights are a lot harder to conduct properly, and you rarely see it done. It's the same in every flight sim, turn fighters are favored because they're easiest, not because they're best. I watched the FoH fight too, a couple of them were pretty good, most of them were not. That a plane catering to the lowest common denominator was popular is hardly surprising. The F-18 is a competent fighter, a jack of all trades, but I would rather have literally any other high T/W aircraft. Give me a F-15, F-16, or MiG-29 anyday. If he lets me get above him and build an energy advantage he'll be screwed. Yes, gamers love using exploits to win, and the ''destroy my plane to get the kill'' mentality is nothing new. You should never get slow enough for it to be a viable option for him, and if he jams his flaps trying it (which most will, because gamers are chickenshit and go for cheap kills) you should be actively anticipating, extend, climb, then kill him at leisure. He surrenders all initiative the instant he does it, if he fails to kill you within 2-3 seconds, which he shouldn't because you're supposed to be anticipating that bs move, he's screwed. WWII or jets, the rules are the same. I've already been there, done that a million times. The #1 rule is ''don't fight your opponents fight''. If you have substantially higher T/W, or even just a higher energy reserve, you have the option of ''saying no'' to whatever your opponent is wanting to do. Regarding something like a Hornet, a few deg a sec, or a g or two, literally shouldn't matter, because you shouldn't be fighting his fight in the first place. As long as you're close to his level of maneuverability, you should be able to threaten him. You just have to exercise restraint, get and keep your energy, don't cash it out until you're ready to make the kill. It's not that I'm some super splendiferous super internet warrior, but I've done this stuff enough to know how simplistic most people are in their approach to fighting, and I've become very good at maintaining the energy advantage. Used to, I was usually better at flying the knife edge of the envelope than most people and could force them to stall or dip a wing, but modern FCS largely nullify that option, and modern fighters are quite at home with high alpha, post stall maneuvering. Regardless, managing your energy state is very basic stuff. Hornets are not the end all be all, except to people who only know ''I pull hard on stik, mak playn go brrrrt''

I didn't say anything of the sort. Me too, as soon as I can play again, I intend to compete in as many of them as I can. I also intend to use whatever aircraft people consider ''worst'' at the time. Tears of rage taste especially sweet when the victim doesn't at all see it coming Nothing wrong with that. To a certain extent, yes. And yes, it is useful to know. But when a person compares spread sheets and concludes ''how can I possibly win'' they are doing it wrong. Full stop. If the differences are extreme, say an F-5 vs a JF-17 (looks meaningfully at another thread) yes, you can abstractly determine a conclusion. But if they are NOT starkly separated, then they become far less significant. You aren't going to win off a degree or two a second, or a few hundred pounds of thrust, or a g or two. That is not how it works. The pilots are not 100% equally skilled, they are not going to perform a set series of maneuvers. It will not come down to ''math'' and ''spreadsheets''. Period. That is not how it works. A person that thinks it does, does not understand the subject all that well. These are influences on the final result, but not determinants. I am perfectly fine with others views, on matters that are subject to debate and open to interpretation. That does not mean that all views are equally valid, or that all subjects are open to debate, or that a person may be wrong. In this particular situation, people trying to ''min max'' fighter jets like it's a stat based MMORPG are very definitely doing it wrong and do not understand the topic. Nor do I. Nothing I said has anything to do this comment. What I said is fact : air combat is not about the stats except in specific (BVR, perhaps) or extreme scenarios of disparate capabilities. A few percent plus or minus will absolutely not flip the fight one or the other way all by itself.

That is a great view! The lighting is vastly imprpved, too. It really captures the joy of flight =) I remember the first time I flew (in rl) through a multi-layer cloud bank, the things I saw that day have stuck with me forever, and the views I'm seeing in DCS now elicit the same feelings =) Ugh, I really gotta get my life sorted so I can go back to flying

Because using Google is hard, and they would much rather skip research/reading and have someone personally answer their questions or tell them what to do This is why companies spend billions of dollars on ad campaigns.

This isn't a MMORPG where you compare DPS and tanking stats. Those numbers are relevant reference points, but it does not realistically matter if A is slightly more at a given statistic than B. It literally doesn't work that way unless both pilots are very incompetent. Yes, actually, having higher T/W and acceleration is extremely useful in a fight. There is more to fighting than pulling on the stick as hard as you can or trying to ride a certain ''best number''. None of them are 100% realistic because this is a rough digital approximation of reality. That said, it's also irrelevant if it's 100% as long as it's relatively close. To repeat an earlier comment, there is more to air combat than 'stats'. It is not a spreadsheet. In the real world, pilots do not sit down and compare spreadsheets then shrug and say ''what's the point, he's 0.5 degrees a sec faster sustained turn than me *cry*'' It really amazes (and annoys, obviously, but that surprises absolutely no one around here) me the ''stat chasing'' mentality some people around here have. To put it very, very simply, the more a person obsesses over spreadsheets and numbers, the less likely they have any idea what the hell they're talking about.

They're still working on it, and have said so several times. ED has multiple teams, and can work on more than one thing at a time generally. There have not been any details provided as to what MAC will be or how it will work, afaik, probably whatever they were originally envisioning has been reassed and they're doing something different now. I wouldn't wait with bated breath exactly, if they're talking about something it usually means ''it'll be a while''.

There are always people who can't manage simple tasks. Steam they select it with a drop down just like with any other Steam game. For the rest, it takes about 15 seconds to use search to find either Skate's GUI or simple command line instructions. DCS handles betas the same basic way every other game does. And just like with every other game, 75% of people are too inept or lazy to use search.

It's pretty far from this thread, at least

The problem with the whole ''it's aliens'' thing, or even ''it's a foreign power'' is the stuff seen/reported is utterly random and pointless. You can spin it however you want, and make bs apologies like ''*long drag on cig* It's like... aliens, man, they don't think like we do'' but that's a bs cop out. Irrational pointless behavior is irrational pointless behavior, and there's no way to explain it away, except possibly that ''aliens'' or ''foreign powers'' have the mentality of a pre-teen engaging in very clumsy pranks... and even that doesn't work, cause it would be once or twice, by one or two, and then that's it, or at least a bit of variety. The fact sightings are both common and completely irrelevant implies it is almost definitely NOT intelligent life, or even stupid life, nor likely created by intelligent life.

Translation: I like long walks on the beach looking for missing links, and poorly edited videos with dramatic music, mostly on YouTube and THC.

Yes, you're behind the times. The F-18 tpod footage has been floating around for about two years and was confirmed as legit by the DoD shortly after it appeared, they also explained the way they altered the procedure for reporting such things. I realise it may be new to YOU, but two years ago we already watched those videos, discussed the DoD response, etc. Yes, you're bringing up the rear on this particular topic Your video even cites a 2019 response. That whole channel is behind the times. It's called recycling clickbait for more ad revenue. It's like conspiracy themed sites/channels are a gimmick or something... who knew?