sobek

Probably depends on the type. I've heard that on some, you mostly hear the environmental control system. I guess it is different on others, but either way, you're wearing headphones under a helmet, so hopefully that should keep a lot of the noise out.

From the forum rules:

I'm pretty sure the downloader uses file compression...

Indeed. Distributing offline tasks like SETI to multiple workers is almost trivial. Distribute your data into batches, give each worker a batch and give the worker as much time as it needs, when it is done, you give it the next batch. Nobody cares about synchronisation in this case. The frame time of the real time physics engine in DCS is a lot shorter than the typical network delay (one direction, mind you, not even round trip). It is impossible to keep the entire multi-client system deterministic by just streaming the command inputs.

Lattice-Boltzmann supposedly has problems with higher Mach numbers. You don't think that could be a problem for a flight sim? That aside, even if Lattice-Boltzmann is vastly more efficient than Navier-Stokes, doing real time CFD might still be out of the question for performance reasons. Also it is a relatively new technique, so you won't find many people that are proficient in it. This is where you are really off base. Equations of motion in DCS are not up to 3rd parties and never have been. Actually employing technology is a bit more complicated than throwing buzz words around.

Real time solution of Navier Stokes Equations on the scale that DCS needs is not possible on a current desktop computer, period. DCS still has to use good old lookup tables. The big difference is that instead of using one multi dimensional table for the entire airframe like older flight model designs, there are now multiple tables for multiple airframe segments.

No, that's not covered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-factor

Actually, P-factor only comes into effect once the plane picks up speed (the exact cause for P-factor is that while the plane is in 3 point attitude, the left and right side of the prop disc experience greatly different angles of attack and this causes one side of the disc to produce way more thrust). Yawing at low speed is caused by the helical slipstream hitting the rudder, plus the inherent instability of the taildragger design (center of mass behind the main wheels).

Your car doesn't have 1000+hp and it doesn't operate in a speed range of 0-600 mph, it doesn't use the same volume of coolant, it doesn't have a pressurized coolant system, the radiator dimensions and flow arrangements are wildely different, how on earth could you come to the conclusion that that is a valid comparison?

This is only true if the design is inherently stable. Apart from GA, most planes are desiged aerodynamically unstable or at least with relaxed stability exactly for this reason. Canards are just another way to reduce stability on a plane.

Actually the rule of thumb is that the force of drag is proportional to velocity squared, but yes, they get inefficient at low speeds. They also have to be replenished before the plane is fit to go on another sortie.

What do you know about the state of TBS except zilch? :)

As everything, it is a compromise, in this case between asset size and the LOD where things start to divert from RL. Interestingly enough, nobody ever complained that a blob on the noise texture for the Caucasus is in the wrong spot. I'm being facetious, but you get the point, in order to keep the size of a terrain sane, i believe there's no alternative to creating a lot of things procedurally and managing one's expectation of what can realistically be achieved in a simulation with regard to RL detail.

Crossing fingers for ATC improvements on my part. :music_whistling:

Scroll to the very bottom of the page, on the left there's a drop down menu. Select english.

Not necessarily. You don't have to create every LOD procedurally. Instead you take a mesh from radar elevation data or what have you and once you're zoomed in far enough, you blend procedurally created details into that height map. That way, you can have reasonably close to RL geographic features combined with small scale noise resolution that would make your file size explode if you were to use conventional techniques. This is exactly what engines like outerra do.

Procedural generation is not random. On the contrary, it is completely deterministic.

That's not really correct. The yellow lights turn on when you try to exceed max power (or rather max EGT IIRC, the engines are temp redlined), max continuous is much lower and is not indicated by any lights. There's only the indicator on the front right panel. If you fly continuously at more than max continuous, the engines power will degrade noticeably over a long mission.

You can't fix a bad ISP in software.

Those are most likely the governor warning lights, which indicate that the engine power is being capped artificially because you are commanding way too much torque. You should not operate continuously in those conditions, as it severly impounds the engines service life. There is a gauge on the front right panel that indicates what power regime you are operating within. I don't remember the maximum allowed times for the power regimes but you can find those in this forum if you search, i'm sure.

You can be extremely aggressive with the controls if you're in the right envelope. With practice you develop sort of a sixth sense for it. It's always good to err on the side of caution, though.

So far, i have seen very few persons argue the price, but instead the rising complexity of differing configurations is troublesome. In the past, when you lacked a module, you could still join the mission but not fly the aircraft you lacked. Now there is more and more paid content that excludes you from a mission entirely if you don't own it.

What you are asking costs significantly more than the price of the asset pack.

Please mind the punctuation. Nowhere did i write that you were throwing a tantrum. Also i'm not accusing you of anything. I just find it sad to see a paying customer brushed off when he comes here with a concern. It is well intended criticism.

Right rudder is also a risk factor. The rudder changes the AoA of the rotors, not in unison like the collective but in opposition. When you press right rudder, the lower rotor will cone more, the upper will cone less.