Mars Exulte

You're pounding out random capital letters like it's going out of style, buddy. This started after you said I was butthurt for lightly mocking your heroes on Youtube. I'm indifferent to this conversation, but sounds like you need a beer.

I didn't request a breakdown of a factual statement, and I don't have to offer a hypothesis, nor is there much point, as it would be made up nonsense just like everyone else's. There is a list of possibilities ranging from ''aliens'' to deliberate misinformation and everything in between, with no more or less evidence for any of them. Whether someone is an expert doesn't change the nature of the situation. This isn't ''hard evidence'' of anything and anyone claiming otherwise is jumping the gun at best, and a fool at worst. I already saw the original videos and read the original reports. Youtube ''experts'' have nothing to add to that information besides... you guessed it! More baseless speculation. The ''spooky'' mood music and bad editing I can live without.

I don't see how that phrase can be interpreted as butthurt... nobody has hard info on details of what the ''anomalies'' are. It's all ''baseless speculation''. That's just a fact. If anybody is showing ''sensitivity'' it's you.

So a guy on Youtube criticising other guys on Youtube for not taking Youtube videos sufficiently seriously? None of this really means anything yet, baseless speculation is still baseless speculation.

Was looking at comments in Casmo's Youtube interview and saw Wags say BS3 is still in active development with both new art and systems! -edit My broken link is no longer necessary, somebody else uploaded one

No?

No worries It really doesn't matter much, but I'll try again. Perhaps poor choice of words on my part. Any potential environment has light sources and a variety of things that influence it. We are in agreement on that. What do I mean by static? Ok, ''ray tracing'' as it is in its ''new'' RTX technology is the dynamic simulation of how light bounces around in a room, for example. It doesn't simply emit from point A, strike point B and stop. It bounces off point B, hits other surfaces and bounces back toward point B and A again, causing a much more diffuse glow besides JUST A and B. In the past, when you saw super fancy ultra realistic lighting in a game, it was because somebody sat down and hand manipulated light sources until they got it fine tuned to look just exactly right. The rest of the game did not look that way because they can't spend the time to hand model the entire game. When talking about a cockpit, versus an open world, they're night and day different. In the open world, you have countless light sources, countless things moving around, there's only two ways to do it. Not at all (ie very simplistic lighting) or dynamically, because it's not feasible to hand manipulate the entire environment. With a cockpit, it's a very small, tightly controlled, sterile environment. You know EXACTLY what emits light and what doesn't. You know exactly what those lights are going to shine on, what colors are involved, what they're going to interact with, etc. As a result, you can (as they say ''precalculated'' not ''handmade'') run a ray tracing algorithm to determine how these lights are going to emit, interact with each other, etc, then save it. It's a KNOWN FACTOR. Whether it's MFDs, warning lights, etc, you can calculate all that ahead of time, you don't have any ''unknowns'' appearing in the cockpit out of nowhere. Regarding things OUTSIDE the cockpit, yes, those are random and unpredictable, but are also the sort of thing that will just be a general cast or light source over the top off/interacting with the pre-calculated lighting. The cockpit is a bunch of known values, if somebody sweeps a spotlight over you, that's just something ''over the top of'' the pre-calculated rendering. That's why I said about ''it may look slightly off sometimes'', because it's NOT ''dynamically calculating'' all these sources, but taking some pre-calculated effects, and blending them with the much simpler dynamic effects outside. 90% of the ''cool'' of ray tracing without the weighty overhead. You can't ''fake'' the whole world, but a small, confined, predictable environment like a cockpit? You can fake it well enough it won't draw undue attention. DISCLAIMER : I have no idea how they're actually doing this stuff, nor have they provided any details. This is all a huge divergence attempting to clarify my interpretation of their statements and what I meant in comparing the cockpit as a ''static environment'' vs ''the whole world'' which has too many sources to attempt to ''fake'' in the same manner.

As they say, ''helluva way to die'' =D You must be new here

The difference is they were actually fully functional ''prototypes'' ie low yield production runs, the only thing keeping them from entering mass production was willpower. The Comanches are ACTUAL prototypes, one off units that weren't really ''finished'' yet. It was a fresh board design and they were even still messing with the airframe, with the intent of finalising what a Comanche even was over the next half dozen prototypes. Which is worth consideration, usually a new design goes through anywhere from 6-12 ''prototypes'' each progressively closer to a finished product, a lot of times the first few aren't even airworthy, just ground tests. With the Comanche, we're looking at #1 and #2, that's pretty damn early in the design process. @OP Yeah, all secrecy aside, that's more of an aside, the more immediate issue being there is no clear ''design'' to build a Comanche to, cause it was literally not finished yet. You would basically just have a 3d model that looked like it, and everything after that would be made up.l, loosely based on whatever the ''projected features'' were intended to be.

I don't know if you're misunderstanding or simply desperate to ''win'' on the internet, it's extremely obvious what I meant by ''static environment'' but sure, whatever makes you happy.

Because it's a stationary environment with not a lot of changing light sources or unforseeable variables? You know... a cockpit? So, like, static lights that are entirely forseeable and always present and therefore can be easily allowed for with static calculations? It's a cockpit. You're not going to randomly have a will o' the wisp in there generating unpredictable lights. It's static, you know... a cockpit with one person in it and predictable light sources! They're also unlikely to bother with ''forty seven MFD screen reflections''. You're not likely going to be able to read what weapons are on your hardpoints on the SMS in the reflection on your canopy @@ Again, static environment with entirely forseeable variables like controls that are always present? It's also unlikely whether they'll bother with rendering them moving because... AGAIN static calculations. It is NOT ''dynamic ray tracing'' so it's NOT going to bw calculating all this crap on the fly. Yeah, kinda like we already have? And kinda like the stuff that is likely to be abstracted to a large extent because it's not being dynamically rendered? That's the whole point of them being ''PRE-calculated''. This isn't that complicated. Most of which is entirely predictable, because, as has been said repeatedly, the cockpit is a static environment with not a lot of stray, unpredictable variables. Аnd again, it's NOT being dynamically rendered so those ''stray unpredictable variables'' are EXACTLY the sort of thing that will be abstracted to a large extent. Note : if your cockpit or car interior ARE unpredictable dynamic environments, you should probably clean some of the garbage out or at least try not to do barrel rolls while swimming in trash.

I would say you're thinking ''western style tank plinking from a hover'' is the only way helicopters work. The Hind is not a dedicated anti-tank helicopter. Full stop. You should not try to USE IT as a dedicated anti-tank helicopter. It can carry guided missiles, yes, but that doesn't mean they're ideal for MBTs specifically. There are plenty of use cases for them without that, though. Taking out SPAAGs or short range SAMs from a safe distance/position, softening up a position from extreme range as you begin your run prior to entering rocket range, etc etc. Think outside the box a little bit. Now from a more practical standpoint, many servers/missions are setup in ridiculous, unrealistic fashion that put you in those ''suboptimal situations'' by default. This is true and unfortunately unavoidable. In real life units do not operate solo on their own, unsupported where they're instantly doomed to failure if they encounter certain situations ala rock paper scissors. That said, people use the Mi-8 all the time and don't seem to miss not being able to plink tanks from 8km, so I'm sure the infinitely more capable Hind will be able to eek out an existence in there somewhere with all the extra firepower it's bringing to bear.

I'd say offhand ''pre-calculated ray tracing'' is the sort of stuff used for those ''hand drawn'' scenes that look so good in some games. The concept of raytracing is nothing all that new in itself, the ''new'' is dynamic calculation suitable for mass deployment in generic, random environments on a large scale. Something like a cockpit, which is a static, never changing environment, is ideal for pre-calculated lighting. Dynamic calculations in that context would be wasted cpu cycles for little real gain compared. So it will definitely be an improvement over hard baked textures, since they'll be ''real'' reflections, but they won't be dynamically generated. You'll probably see occasional situations where it looks slightly ''off'' as a result, but should pass muster most the time.

Eh, having seen with and without... tbh my opinion is, unless your motherboard is a really cheap one lacking decent onboard, you don't really need a soundcard these days. Audio isn't like graphics, it doesn't really change, and the onboard audio on a good motherboard is pretty much as good as any dedicated sound unit. The speakers are where you'll get most your benefit. Cheap tinny speakers won't sound as good as better quality ones. That said, it also depends on your personal preferences. I used to have a 5.1 surround system, and it was cool and all, but a pain in the ass to set up with wires everywhere etc etc. I ended up buying a decent sound bar with dedicated subwoofer for like $200 and it's vastly easier to setup and sounds good enough for me. Basically, unless you're a freakishly obsessive audiophile, this isn't a big deal, you can skip the soundcard outright and just buy a sound system you feel is appropriate and forget about it. Last point, regarding surround sound and the main box you have... those things are ridiculously overpriced and extremely dated in their whole design philosophy. There's no reason whatsoever to have 90% of the crap they have on it, and definitely no reason to be so big. But smaller ones are inversely MORE expensive because they're ''special''. Bah. That whole experience was enough to put me off the stuff altogether. Most audio systems are a lot like the incandescent bulbs that are still in use over 120 years later : they're crap, grossly inefficient, and there are infinite better options, but they continue to be used out of laziness and lack of impetus to change. The incandescent light bulb is finally being replaced, and hopefully the junk audio ''system'' in use the last few decades will soon join it on the trash bin of history @@

Tldr obviously @@ It doesn't exist yet, thus why you haven't seen it before.

How pre-order? Is no fair Nvidia prob sell to bots 1st

It would take less time to test than to post this and wait for an answer. Create a SAM system (helpfully easy via the provided templates) and spawn a four ship flight in its engagement zone. See if it shoots them one at a time or all at once. End test.

Yeah, because kneejerk splurging totally isn't a thing on internet forums.

That newsletter lookin' fine...

A true self inflicted problem! Don't read the updates and their expectations wont ever risk being tragically shattered =D

Excellent testing amd presentation. Also, that cinches it for me. I've been wishy washy about whether it was worth doing an upgrade for me (Skylake 6700k @ 4.6/4.7). Seems like it's apt to be significant even if everything else remains the same. Good bye old and busted, hello new hotness!

Doesn't the Jf-17 have something similar to an SDB on it? Or is it more of a cruise missiley thingy?

Every module has bugs. They always will. Many of those bugs have existed a long time. 99.9% of them are not game breaking except to drama queens. Welcome to electronic gaming, please enjoy your stay. Yes, you can. And I can disagree with people and call them out for being dramatic. Good for you? The definition isn't debatable. There are some free dictionaries online if you really have no idea. This is an awful lot of senseless prattle. *yawn* Right, you prefer passive aggressive whining and circular arguments. Finally got to the end of that mess.

More income is arguably better for everyone. Low investment is annoying on the forums, but so what? I have dozens of ignored users, I am happy to make it hundreds for the game's benefit Like I said, even FC3 is too much trouble for most people. This is community will always be niche for the hardcore enthusiasts, nothing's going to really change that. Japo, yes piracy was an issue at one time. Some of your ideas are from inexperience and a bit overreaching

I, too, take my video games seriously, but this is really ridiculous thinking. They haven't lied or extorted money from each anybody. They haven't hurt anybody. It's a video game. People with this thinking need to go outside more often. Saying it's ''no big deal'' isn't ''pandering'', it's what a well developed, mature person thinks about their video games regardless of context.