Tango

Hmm OK!! Shall have to have a look. Thanks! Best regards, Tango.

Thanks for the link regarding projection systems. Not sure where Helios fits in? Best regards, Tango.

Hi, Looking at using DCS as the basis of a fixed-based simulator. The idea is to try and interface with the actual aircraft instruments and drive them based on data from DCS. Before embarking on this project (in terms of actually buying an actual cockpit to convert), we are interested to know if it is possible to get DCS to display the visual environment across one or two separate display systems? We are currently considering one system to run the DCS simulation, and possibly a second to handle the hardware side, and creating our own protocols to interface with the second system. How we are going to handle the displays is still open, but we are considering a projection type system, onto a canvas that will replace the cockpit canopy glass. We think we can use 1 projector for the forward view, and a second for the rest (to project the view over the top). Does anyone know if this is possible to do in DCS? In summary: Run two projectors (minimum) * one forward view * one overhead/side view The virtual cockpit doesn't want to be visible in any view. Best regards, Tango.

The tools are present, only they are 64-bit. Best regards, Tango.

Hi Yo-Yo, Could you check your PMs please and see if you received a message from me? Thanks!!! Best regards, Tango.

No, sorry. Best regards, Tango.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1418067&postcount=1 Best regards, Tango.

None - they are under orders to get on-board or face court marshal! :D Best regards, Tango.

If ED spent their time creating documents, it would detract from creating the best simulation platform. If however they did create a document, it would read something like: ...and frankly - nothing we didn't already know. ;) Bad add-ons are inexcusable. They say a free market is a good thing, but sometimes progress is made by having standards dictated. Eventually those who require SDKs and hand-holding to produce add-ons, will realize what they need to do to create add-ons for "free form" simulation platforms like DCS, then eventually they will create them. This isn't "programming by numbers". I highly commend ED for maintaining quality control and oversight on the process. In too many areas of life things are reduced to the lowest common denominator - at least here when you see a product for DCS you can be CERTAIN of a high minimum standard (good for developers, great for consumers). Best regards, Tango.

SDKs are over-rated IMHO. First of all they immediately limit options (never a good thing) as the programmers who write them are generally incapable of thinking outside the box, so they guess at how their product might/should be used, and write complex SDKs to do that (often poorly). As a direct consequence, anyone developing for that platform is stuck with a poor interface, and limited options for doing things, and anything you might want to access is locked away and hard to access, if you can access it at all (there are two very well-known flight sims that fall into this category). Sure - all software has some kind of SDK - it must in order to interact with it. The problem is most SDK developers are far too limiting with them, and/or do a very poor job of designing them. In at least one case, some data is plain unavailable, which is fatal to the accurate simulation of anything requiring a time reference. This instantly destroys the word "simulator" in the product title; it becomes "imitation". This might not matter if you write "games", but for those who are looking to do a proper systems simulation, it makes it impossible (and I mean that literally) to do. Modern computers are mini supercomputers these days, and there is no reason why we can not have highly complex, highly accurate simulations of systems/flight models. If that means you require a strong engineering or aeronautics background to accomplish it - so be it! Best regards, Tango.

+1 If it was that easy, why are other flight sims so simple? Sure, they model normal systems behavior (e.g. you click this button and that lights up) but most entertainment flight sims, even the most "hard core" barely touch the reality of physics at all! Some flight sims are "our way or the highway" when it comes to systems development. With DCS however, it's totally open. You can write anything you want, as you want, and there are no limits, beyond processing power and capability of the developer. This is in stark contrast to just about every other sim out there, where the framework is too rigid. A lot of developers struggle with that idea alone - the fact that there is no framework beyond the simple yet very powerful interface between our code and the sim! The interface for the flight model in DCS is arranged such that you can go from a simple flight model that responds to control inputs, to fully-fledged real-time CFD if you have the processing power to handle it. No other commercial sim allows this. Even multi-million dollar sims are simpler than you'd think when it comes to flight models. They just hit the key areas that they need to for specific scenarios, and the rest is fiction. With DCS we actually have the ability to do flight models that are mind-blowingly accurate in areas of the flight envelope you wouldn't think possible. Show me an existing commercial flight sim (excluding DCS) that models all the nuances of gyros and their behaviors, effects of aircraft attitude on radios, models maneuvering precession, not to mention all the other systems such as air data and all the effects on that, etc...? Anyone tried doing any astronomy at night in DCS? You should. ;) Best regards, Tango.

AFM/EFM development is primarily aimed at 3rd party developers. It seems one group has partially succeeded at creating an AFM/EFM but they ran into problems as ED only provide support to 3rd party developers. All 3rd party developers (including myself) are under NDA regarding the internal workings of the sim, so we're unable to assist. If you have a project that you think ED would be interested in, then get a group together and approach them with it. :) Best regards, Tango.

It's OK saying it is not aerobatic, but the real question is: what is the maximum permitted *intentional* loading of the rotor system (I'm not talking theoretical maximums - I mean what are you allowed to pull in normal ops that means you can fly it again later)? It's like the Boeing test pilot who barrel rolled the 707 - it was a 1 g maneuver, so no harm to the aircraft whatsoever. I get the impression that +2 g is pushing things in the Huey... Another important factor in any flying is to fly smoooooooooth. Best regards, Tango.

I was flying; Fulcrum29 was ramping. We went to do some buddy lasing. Best regards, Tango.

:megalol: Best regards, Tango.

Great post! I love these lower-tech aircraft because they force you to have to actually think about your flying and flight path, and not simply follow the magenta/red/green/blue line to the target, attack and leave like nothing happened. Even in the modern battlefield, there is no replacement for good planning, especially where helicopters are concerned. I too hope that the trees eventually become solid. This is a serious issue for helicopters. Some more tactics: * Never attack from the same direction twice * Always fly off-target in different directions if flying multi-ship * Never fly in straight lines near or over the target area (fly curved approaches using terrain as much as possible to reduce exposure time) * Never do an over-flight first to see whether it is clear - use another, preferably faster, aircraft for any forward observations (e.g. FAC), and have them fly in from another direction * Fly as low and as fast as possible near the target area - make it very hard for small arms fire to track and hit you * Practice quick stops and transitions so you can fly the aircraft quickly into and out of an area without hanging around in a hover too long (also useful for escape and evasion - helicopters can turn on a dime and thus change direction very quickly). Best regards, Tango.

I only met him briefly at Duxford last year, but his enthusiasm and warmth were immediately apparent. My condolences to friends, colleagues and family. Rest in peace, Jim. Best regards, Tango.

Start with the model and 3D Studio Max. Best regards, Tango.

:megalol: I like the idea! Best regards, Tango.

If you compare the actual terrain to DCS, it is also very close. The towns etc.. are where they are IRL, including the roads, railways and rivers. Best regards, Tango.

Oh - interesting! Shall test. Best regards, Tango.

They are the small bushes on the ground (grasses etc..). It is heavy on frames for me too, even at modest settings (300 m). I try and keep the sim running above 30 FPS. It is easy to drag it to its knees with this setting. It is extremely dense close up, and if you're flying aircraft it doesn't really make sense to activate this, unless you're flying Black Shark. Shame, because it does add to the scene in the peripheral at very low altitudes. Best regards, Tango.

No username/password should be required. Try another mirror. Best regards, Tango.

Do the math on your 5%. Let's take DCS A-10 as an example. Retail at $39.99. Let's say we have 1,000 customers. 1,000 x $39.99 = $39,990. 5% of that is 50. 50 x $39.99 = $1,999.50. You would prefer to lose $1,999.50? If we have 10,000 customers, that loss just became $19,995.00. 100,000 customers...... Yikes. $199,950 lost in potential sales. That has to be balanced against how many people are actually going to be using it on 32-bit OS. It incurs time building 32-bit libraries and installers, we have more operating systems to support as a result, so that has to be factored into whether potential sales justify the added time. Oh - and it needs testing too, to ensure that it works as expected on the different platform. Best regards, Tango.

I'll build one specially for you - how's that? :P Convincing ED to do the same will be a bit harder... :D Best regards, Tango.