Speed

Dude, if you think DCS is hard to set up, that its hard in DCS to get your axis settings, HOTAS programmed, etc... that could only be because you haven't tried Falcon 4 BMS. What a nightmare getting my HOTAS set up for that was... :cry: (lotsa bugs, poor documentation, etc).

Well, there would go TARs. Tacview.. some of the other mods people are enjoying. Maybe on public FC3 servers would this happen, but at this point, I don't think anyone cares enough because A-10/Ka-50 aren't usually going head-to-head on public servers. But, I'm really hoping that ED to completes the improved integrity checking system they are either working or thinking about working on. Honestly, what I need to work on is a Lua mods loading system. That could help the alleviate any potential problems, and also make it easier for multiple mods to work together, even within the same Lua environment.

That's an incredibly vague article. The Viking results have always been a little interesting, but I don't think that this guy's findings will add much weight to the biological explanation. There are delusional scientists who make announcements like this all the time.

That sounds fixable. I didn't even know that problem existed. If anyone could give me a reproducible mission/scenario/procedure that results in a manifestation of the incessant RTB messages bug, or any kind of annoying looping radio message, I'd actually look to see if it were possible to fix that one. Not sure if it is, the problem that causes looping radio messages seems to reside in the C++ code that calls the radio message itself. I can fix radio messages because they are written in Lua, not the things that trigger them to go off, which are hard-coded in C++. But it might be possible to set it up so that rapidly repeated RTB messages coming from the same unit do not return values to the C function that called them. Or that could just cause a CTD :D Who knows. Any other radio bugs I should know about?

You've stated a number of things ED has said it is going to do, and a few things which it has actually achieved. Let alone set deadlines! Since when did promises = content? Not often, with ED! Wow, attitudes like yours is why we never get updates from ED on future releases until they are just about to release. :no_sad: I stated eight things, of which, six have already been completed/worked on within the last year or two, and are present in the current version of A-10C, and the other two I already played with, in A-10C beta, but ED removed them before A-10C was officially released, and these two elements are now nearing release in a significantly improved form. Basically, it would be a good idea to learn what you are talking about before you open your mouth.

You're right. The game is stagnant. ED isn't developing any new aircraft, any new maps, any new gameplay elements, they haven't updated the .exe to include 64 bit support, and they have stated no intention or progress in moving towards multicore support. Also, the size of the Caucuses theater has never been extended. The mission editor has never been improved either, and there has been no progress towards moving towards more dynamic/random missions/campaigns.

I think what Viper means, is that by talking about multi-core utilization and DCS, you're just doing this: In fact, that dead horse has been beaten so many times, it's probably horse burger by now. In short: what is usually said is that the ED team says they want to utilize multiple cores more effectively, it's just difficult to program and will take time.

Not only is throttle position vs. thrust non-linear, there is a big phase delay between throttle position and thrust, and another phase delay between thrust and speed... PID control is perhaps over-complicating the problem a bit for a first step. Why not just try proportional control (as ldnz suggests)? I donno, maybe add a hysteresis into it too? Anyway, not a control system engineer myself though, and I only have vague memories of the class. I just think it would be better to start basic, and only implement a more advanced control scheme if the basic one doesn't work.

Ah here it is, in ./Scripts/Database/scripts/cannon.lua: GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46 = {} -- 125mm D-81 gun for T-72, T-80, T-90 GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.type = 2 GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.distanceMin = 50 GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.distanceMax = 3500 GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.max_trg_alt = 3000 GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.reactionTime = 2 GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.platform_max_speed = 9 GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.sound = { single_shot = "Weapons/Cannon/125mmGun", } GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.sensor = {} set_recursive_metatable(GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.sensor, GT_t.WSN_t[7]) GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.PL = {} GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.PL[1] = {} GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.PL[1].shot_delay = 7.5 GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.PL[1].ammo_capacity = 22 GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.PL[1].shell_name = {"2A46M_125_AP"}; GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.major_weapon = true; GT_t.LN_t.tank_gun_2A46.BR = { {pos = {5.4, 0,0} } } BTW, I can confirm, as I thought, that run-time modification (as in, editing the value of these variables in memory using net.dostring_in in multiplayer) to these variables does nothing. The variables are probably loaded into C++ and then never looked at again in Lua. That's the way it is with a lot of things. That's also why I had never tried this particular thing before, because I didn't think it would work. But you never know.

Well, I just started playing around with this myself. If you want to increase the number of rounds of AP, then it looks like you need to modify this value: db["Units"]["GT_t"]["LN_t"]["tank_gun_2A46"]["PL"][1]["ammo_capacity"] This "tank_gun_2A46" is used for more than one tank, the T-72 inherits it. Not sure which file it's defined in though, I can look if you want. By default, db["Units"]["GT_t"]["LN_t"]["tank_gun_2A46"]["PL"][1]["ammo_capacity"] is 22.

Yup, this is a known problem to me, but who knows if it's been reported to ED. I know that in multiplayer, any pilot who ejects instantly disappears. This happens in single player now too? I sure wish they would synchronize ejected pilots between clients and hosts.

Thank you Grimes for posting your research. You do similar things to the things I do when I'm trying to develop a new Lua capability. These variables should be accessible in the main simulation (aka "server") Lua environment. I'll check them out, on the off chance that a run-time modification of them might be able to change the amount of ammunition a tank can hold. Most likely, however, a run-time modification of the ammo capacity will not change anything, as for many similar Lua variables, the C++ executable only gets information on them once, very early on, and then never looks at the Lua variable again. Who knows, maybe I could make a function to increase/decrease ammo capacity of unactivated units-perhaps the Lua variable is referenced when units become activated. Unfortunately, the game variables that hold the current amount of ammunition a unit is holding are not exposed in Lua, so there's nothing I can do to edit them. Anyway, you inspired me to try a few experiments :)

Well, it has another positive benefit too for finding targets- when AI make radio calls about spotting targets at bullseye coordinates, they should actually work now in multiplayer. And not only that, in both single and multiplayer, these bullseye radio calls should be far more accurate because the azimuthal error in bullseye radio calls has been removed.

Where are you from Hassata? Am I remembering wrong that your sig used to say Amman, Jordan? Anyway, yes, I'm white, and from Alabama (where blacks where subject to some of the most harsh racism for a long time) and yes, that article says several things that I find offensive too. But here in the US, it's simply a fact that blacks are still poorer on average than whites. This leads to the unavoidable consequence that they engage in more violent crime, which helps to fuel some of the racism. If you compared blacks and whites of equal average income, I'd bet you'd see the same level of violent crime/robberies/etc. But blacks and whites do not make equal income. I think the problem has a lot to do with the fact that it's a lot harder to chance your socioeconomic class than we'd like to think; if you're born in the ghetto into the kinds of family environments that exist there, then there's a very good chance you're going to live in the ghetto all your life. Given enough time, I think we'll see the problem correct itself. I don't really think it's necessary to over-complicate the situation much more than that. Anyway, it's not like it's a horrible problem though, and it is slowly getting better all the time. And that article was certainly very offensive on many topics, especially towards the latter half. I've got to wonder... if parents are having a "race" talk with their kids at such late times, that article HAS to be written by a yankee. Someone who only has occasional contact with black people, up north. I have come to suspect that people who live up north and don't come into contact with many blacks might these days be MORE racist than white southerners, who actually live with black people and know them better. Hmm... probably would need to ask a black person about that, they'd certainly know better than I would.

GG, this was along the lines of what I originally tried to say, but my F@#$#$## router somehow managed to send less than half the post. Right, but also, the Ka-50's operational use was curtailed because it is under-funded. Instead of a main, front-line, anti-armor attack helo, Russia uses it to support special ops. Do you have any doubt that the Ka-50 would have had its AAM capability fully completed, had it been chosen over the Mi-28 as Russia's new attack helo? Or at least, they would be planning for it? But then again, perhaps the design of the Ka-50 would prevent even that from happening. Where would you put the AAMs? Just the fact that a helo might be carrying an AAM could force opponents to treat it with more respect. It doesn't even have to fire an AAM for it to potentially be effective. Aerial opponents might be more reluctant to engage a helo if they think it could be carrying AAMs. Maybe not a fighter armed with ARH or SARH missiles, but certainly something like an A-10 or a Su-25 is going to be forced to respect the helo threat much more if they could be carrying AAMs. So just the idea that a helo might be carrying an AAM helps to make an environment that is more conducive to the helo's survival. Wouldn't a more valid comparison be something like the B61 and the F-16? The F-16 was tested and is configured to release it, but it never carries it, for obvious reasons. Should the need arise though, it can be loaded. Same goes for AAMs on attack helos where the helo has been tested and configured to fire them. No need to load them up, until there IS a need to load them up. Just because a weapon isn't used operationally today because it's unnecessary for current conflicts is not a good excuse to ignore modeling that weapon in a simulation. IMO, better excuses would be something like, "helicopter AI is currently incapable of using AAMs", or even "we just haven't gotten to it yet, have patience". Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the Ka-50. I'm talking about attack helos that we know for sure have been configured to carry AAMs and could carry them operationally should the need arise. Currently, in DCS, that's what- the AH-1W? Mi-28? (or did they never complete installation/testing of Igla capability for the Mi-28?)

Right, but also, the Ka-50's operational use was curtailed because it is under-funded. Instead of a main, front-line, anti-armor attack helo, Russia uses it to support special ops. Do you have any doubt that the Ka-50 would have had its AAM capability fully completed, had it been chosen over the Mi-28 as Russia's new attack helo? Or at least, they would be planning for it? But then again, perhaps the design of the Ka-50 would prevent even that from happening. Where would you put the AAMs?

I thought the reason the Ka-50 doesn't carry them is because further Ka-50 development was aborted prior to the AAM capability being fully added? I mean, that at least makes sense. Once Russia decided they really only were going to buy a one or two dozen Ka-50s, the logic behind not continuing with further development seems pretty sound. And no one else has wanted to buy any Ka-50s either, so why would Kamov finish integrating a capability that is useless in most modern conflicts? IRL, I believe there is a discussion to arm helos with AAMs not just for defense against fighters, but against UAVs as well. The Predator drone can carry Stingers, and actually fired one in combat against an Iraqi fighter before the 2003 invasion (it didn't help the Predator much, the Iraqi fighter still shot it down). Anyway, do you know if they have or are going to add or have already added AAMs to the Ka-52? Russia seems serious about Ka-52 development, at least.

Oh no, not again...

Well, don't delete any images or sound files you have added into the mission. Also, the "options" and "warehouses" files are not essential. They can be deleted too. In fact, the "options" file sometimes can cause problems, and needs to be deleted. BTW, this problem arises when you use the "Prepare Mission" button. Don't use it unless you honestly want to set up the avionics specifically. Even then, I'm not sure exactly how it works. Sorry for not seeing this forum thread and giving timely advice to fix the problem when it came up. This problem results in a new topic on these forums on average of once every 2 months.

We all have something, different, huh? This is how much I love DCS: I pasted the current version of Slmod I'm working on into MS Word, just to see what the word count and number of pages was. It's going to get longer too, before it's done :)

Yes, and real A-10 pilots also view the world at less than 1X magnification, like you will in game, if you never use zoom and have a normal-sized monitor, and sit the average distance in front of it. Medic, you need to educate yourself more on this topic before you bash the way folks are playing. :no_sad:

I love flying BS just because of the flight model. Mustang ought to be awesome then!

Since the topic of this forum is "Other Sim News", isn't this thread off topic?

Yes, if the player's setting has F5 nearest aircraft view enabled, it doesn't matter what the mission or server settings are. The player who has it enabled in his single player GUI settings will still be able to use it, even when external views are otherwise completely disabled. Anyway, I think this was reported like a year ago, I actually saw a topic or reply by Panzertard about it. Obviously, fixing it by FC3 release needs to be a priority, as this problem really kills player-vs-player combat. OK, Here are two previous threads reporting the problem: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=82639 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=75704 I last tried this out in 1.1.1.1 I believe, but not 100% sure about that. It may have been late 1.1.1.0. Could be worth a try in the current version. Who knows, maybe the last time I tested this WAS in 1.1.1.0, and the problem WAS stealth-fixed in 1.1.1.1, and I just haven't tried it since then. I doubt it though. The comments in the thread I started about it make me think not.

No, they can't, unfortunately. Server settings are overrode by local client's F5 nearest aircraft view setting. Not sure to what extent A-10s in MP use this cheat, but it sure taints the whole experience. I would recommend simply not flying against human opponents until this is fixed.