Mars Exulte

Joooooiiiiiiin uuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssss

The primary criteria all along is whether or not there is enough available data, a professional team actually capable of doing it, and somebody who wants to. In the example of the F-20 mentioned above? Is there enough data? If so, then it's feasible to do, is their a team available and capable? If so, then it's feasible. Does that team WANT to do it? If not, then the other stuff doesn't matter. Just because something is a popular wishlist item doesn't mean it's feasible or that anyone who does this for a living WANTS to. I see the COMMUNITY pitch bitch fits about certain models and whether somebody ''should or shouldn't'' but ED is generally pretty openminded to aircraft, including civilian or non-combat, if somebody wants to and can. No matter what gets built, nobody is forced to buy it or use it in their missions, and a team making ''*insert plane I don't like because reasons*'' isn't necessarily ''wasting resources'' because by doing something they WANT to do. The ''view endorsed by certain vocal segments is not indicative of the reality which is readily observable''

You needed your own thread? With all the obvious answers repeated just for you? Everytime somebody places the three letter semantics bs, a puppy somewhere in the world starts crying. Seriously, everytime I see this nonsense, I want to You're playing a videogame, just like the screeching twelve year olds on Xbox, it doesn't matter some of us spent $3000 on peripherals, it's still a videogame. We need to have a weekly Eagle Dynamics Bingo card

Afaik this does not work with DCS, whether you enable it or not, based on my investigation just a week or so ago. If something ACTUALLY functions, it will typically do so for everyone, or at least in repeatable, verifiable manner, which I have NOT seen clear evidence of anywhere yet.

Yes, but they didn't provide a notarized statement to him and other relevant legal authorities personally.

No, they probably just made this decision randomly after binging Saved by the Bell for the last three years. Thank god we have the internet to rush forward and ask the real questions nobody considered. In fact, I'm thinking they secretly chose this model just because they enjoy torturing the community. On another note, I remember during the discussions about a follow up to the Jf-17 this plane was a contending project a long time ago. Personally, I think it's an interesting choice, and seems like it's pretty similar (in principle) to an Su-15. Look forward to your work, Deka!

OK, well. That was weird.

I can barely see through this cloud of Doritos dust.

AFAIK MAC will be separate, assuming it ever sees daylight again. That'll be the place for ''improvised'' modeling to appeal to the wider audience, with DCS being the ''by the book'' approach. Probably be a lot of shared assets and code between the two, though.

Effectiveness varying due to crew skill is indeed a rationale. A <profanity> crew with a Patriot or Iron Dome is likely to be less effective than a well drilled and experienced crew with an Sa-2. That's just a reality, and the concept applies to virtually everything in life irrespective of context. My argument was, since we already know the crews in 1990s Iraq were probably not particularly high quality, them being relatively ineffective against a large, highly trained, combined arms force fully utilising the electronic spectrum to disrupt defending efforts is not a significant reflection against the system under more ideal circumstances. Like one or two dip<profanity> gamers yoloing into an AO lobbing HARMs and JDAMs at random targets, let alone the entirely absent EWAR stuff and combined arms support. DCS result do not equal realworld results for a lot more than just ''ED DOING IT WRONG''. AAA aims directly at your plane, specifically your pilot's head. They will lead you, but do not anticipate or coordinate. That is a fact. Unless you're so close you cannot evade the bullet, or the particular arrangement is such that you're being fired on from multiple angles eliminating any ''safe place to go'' AAA is extrememy easy to dodge as long as you do not fly in a straight line. SAM's are equally simplistic. There is no EWAR or group coordination, they don't even blink their radars on and off. They come on, they lock, and they spam missiles until you die, they lose contact, or they run out of ammo. That's it. Yes, they are more dangerous than AAA for that reason as they don't care about your barrel role, but they are far from realistic. Countermeasures do not work realistically either, each flare/chaff has a percentage chance of making it lose track. So again, not hard to deal with on its own, circumstances permitting and depending on the specific environment. I've been here 10 years. Yes, you can get killed, and we argue about over/under performing missiles, but the core mechanics driving the interactions are extremely simple and a known quantity. It isn't black magic or techpriest babble. So, my ''evidence'' is how the game actually functions.

By that logic, we should have an option to change crew skills... oh wait. We do. Although to be fair, the options aren't very useful, but that's the idea at least. On that note, DCS ground AI is pretty uniformly equivalent to stupid lemmings that drive in straight lines, do not react, and are merely 'moderately capable' of shooting at something. AA can be evaded indefinitely by a slow barrel role, and SAMs basically are on/off and randomly shoot at you with no coordination, strategy, or clue. They're pretty ineffective across the board.

And we all know the Iraqis prided themselves on their all volunteer force, trained to such high standards they shamed even many European militaries.

You like getting fleeced or something?

That's what I did. Got a 3090 for $750, 3080ti was $725 and 3080 was $700. No regrets, applied the undervolt as recommended and been bangin' ever since. After the last round of patches to DCS, OpenXR, OpenComposite, etc, I've finally got everything in a good place with good framerates, high res, and acceptable smoothness. I consider my rig DCS VR capable at last! At least until the next patch and or hardware failure borks it all and I have to start over. The engine improvements inbound should push me into truly stellar territory.

Hardware won't cure the issues with performance we have in DCS. There is little point in continuing to spend money trying to brute force it. Multithreading and Vulkan are the only things that are going to ''fix'' this thing. Hopefully they'll be launching this spring/summer from how it sounds.

I didn't make them I'm just showing my new arrivals, and these are plastic. I am slowly accumulating models from Flying Mule. I have an F-4J arriving in a few days that is a large diecast. They range from about 5 inches to about a foot long. I have Bf-109E, Eurofighter (Luftwaffe), F-16, F-18, P-51D, KA-50, Mi-8, Su-27, Su-24, Yak-3, P-39. I also have three low quality models that are F-4U, B-17, and Apache.

Don't we all... It's basically a massive community wide effort to throw sh*t at the wall and see what sticks, then pass our unscientific results on to the next monke, repeat ad infinitum.

Hey, give me a $5,000 GPU the size of a minifridge that plugs into the wall and needs its own dedicated circuit and I'll buy it, as long as it'll give me over 60fps in DCS VR. I have no confidence it would, but I can dream.

I know it was considered once many years ago. If you were unaware, Steel Beasts Pro is literally for tanks what DCS is for aircraft.

Plugging for EZDIY-FAB fans. I bought a whole bunch of them and have been super pleased with them. Good price (about $10 apiece) and I like the design. EZDIY-FAB Moonlight 120mm RGB Case Fan with Fan Hub X and Remote,Motherboard Aura SYNC,Speed Control,Addressable Fan for PC Case-6 Pack https://a.co/d/3k4GOn6

What happened to that thread? It's gone now? -edit Nvm, think I found it.

Yeah, tbh, let's side everything else aside and just take it at face value based on the overall condition of the fans described here... This person saw this themselves and just... ignored it until complete failure? This isn't a "fan issue", even if it started as one.

This completely disregards common sense and general thermal behaviors. Nope, you've pretty well eclipsed that. That's what really inexperienced builders with really poorly designed cases are doing trying to cheap out. A properly designed case works by channeling the cool airflow across key components and out an exhaust. Just like countless other machines in use all across society. High volume fans will be 30-40 cubic feet per minute. Assuming an average of four or five fans, you'll be flowing literally all the air in the room through that case every few minutes, which is going to be way more heat exchange than your ''leave the side off and hope for the best'' approach. It's really easy to test. Do a benchmark stress test or something, note your highest temperatures and overall average, then put your case together in even a semi-intelligent arrangement (intake at front exhaust at back/top) and it is guaranteed to be considerably lower across the board unless you do something really backasswards. What you're doing also will not work if there are high ambient temperatures, because even the mediocre dissipation you're getting will be reduced. Protip : If literally everyone does things a certain way, there's *probably* a reason that needs to be carefully considered. You didn't suddenly clue into some new concept nobody ever thought of before @@

Yeah, I'm not one to rag them, but this clearly created unholy hell for a lot of people and was not officially notated until less than twenty minutes ago with a sticky finally... nearly a full day after release. Seriously, nobody thought a fundamental change like this needed to be communicated ahead of time? I wonder if we'll discover MT and Vulkan suddenly appear and people's rigs inexplicably stop functioning @@ It's just dumb.