Headspace

That isn't possible. If export stops, TARS will also stop. Something else was going on. I'm guessing that this had something to do with use of the last frequency dial in some of the earlier versions of A-10C. If you see this happening again, please provide logs. To get a clear picture, I would need logs from both the sender and receiver where the problem manifested.

Thanks, I'll check it out. I looked at your log--it's definitely not connecting to Teamspeak 3 from DCS. I would guess that maybe you altered the IP address settings in the control panel, is this the case?

If you send your logs to the TARS website I can assist. There is a bug reporting form that you can attach your logs to. I set it up for that reason. In your case, DCS isn't talking to Teamspeak. If you altered the IP addresses in the TARS config, that may be why. That scenario isn't possible when TARS is running. Likely it somehow stopped for whoever was hearing everyone, or people were transmitting on a different radio than they thought they were.

Looks like Teamspeak 3.0.0 just came out in the last 24 hours or so--and its API version number is updated so TARS is not going to work with this version. The new build which incorporates the distance falloff/volume changes will be compatible with 3.0.0.

Are you honestly saying there are no bugs or other playability issues in MP? What about the distance warping? I'm not saying it has bad MP but to suggest there aren't issues that could be dealt with in a future game is disingenous. I would hate to see an improved engine that still features playability issues that were extant in a game that came out in 2006.

Thanks everyone. I know some of you are having issues with the volume, I am working on fixing it this week and you will see a 1.0.1b7 soon with the fix included. In the meantime turn up your teamspeak 3 volume.

The RC2-combatible version of TARS is out! Please read about the update on the TARS website. The purpose of this release is to test the new sound system against a larger player count and allow me to gather audio-related suggestions and bug reports. Have fun!

0_o I think the maturest elements of that community (and any gaming community) are those that don't take themselves seriously. Having said that it seems unlikely that attracting new demographics to the game would be anything but a good thing.

The new sound system is integrated and the code is all DCS 1.1.0.9 and TS3 RC2 compatible as of last night. Some internal testing must be done and if there are no major bugs I will release a new beta (TARS 1.0.1 Beta 1) that is RC2 compatible for broader testing.

The TAD only operates in one font. Change font to the default and HOOK function will re-enable. Try zooming in as well.

Serial: 07023 Location: Indiana, USA

Fred: How would one distinguish between a DVOR and a CVOR on a sectional chart?

There are combination TACANs and VORs called VORTACs but a TACAN equipped aircraft cannot use VOR and vice versa. The difference is that VOR incorporates a positive to/from flag and TACAN does not.

I still haven't been able to justify water cooling; seems to me a big liability for a comparatively little speed increase over the traditional method. I put the extra money into a faster CPU instead.

That's the first report of trouble with 1.1.0.9, please submit logs to the site if you are having issues. Anyone else having trouble with the 1.1.0.9 release please do the same. Thanks!

I think it bears mention for those not in the know. And this surprised me, when I started doing the whole flying thing. There is very little doubt in my mind that it's much different in the military. Airplanes are not like cars. They last for decades. But they're also having parts replaced, rebuilt, and refurbished nearly all the time. Avionics, panels, engines, even wings get replaced periodically depending on aircraft make and model. In the civilian world it is up to the owner/operator to comply with all of the FARs (or whatever rules govern that sort of thing in your country!) that cover airworthiness. This often results in as situation where aircraft are flying around with an amalgamation of new/old parts or parts from different manufacturers. On some airplanes, one wing might be newer than another wing. Sometimes, you have a collection of new instruments alongside old instruments. And so it goes.

In the meantime it might be useful for you guys (Speed, and others) who have depended on accessible objects in the mission/trigger environment to test other stuff you've used (ex: land.height) to see if it disappeared and make a list of what you might want back. I am personally really busy with other stuff right now and can't test all of this in the immediate future.

I will try to be as non-technical as possible. A checksum is a piece of data of fixed size (usually a number for all intents and purposes) that is usually used for performing an integrity check of received data (such as a file) and is derived from that data. See the CRC as an example of this. MD5 is a cryptographic hash algorithm that while similar to a checksum (and can be used for similar purposes) was designed with security in mind; in theory it should be impossible from a practical standpoint to easily generate two blocks of data (such as a pair of files) for which the same MD5 hash will be computed. So it is sort of an electronic fingerprint. MD5, like its predecessor MD4 is now considered to be insecure but it is still often used. In layman's terms you can think of checksums and hashes as unique fingerprints derived to data such as files, certificates, and so forth. I hope that helps.

Frostiken: I'm a software developer and I have worked on realtime simulation and assorted other projects of the game and non-game variety for the past ten years. Just because Ethereal is in the QA department doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. What you are talking about has far more to do with graphics and object modeling than the physics engine per se, and if you look at the object granularity in DCS engine it doesn't take a programmer to note that it probably isn't set up to do what you guys are asking for. It might be possible, but why bother? Look at some of the discussions in the Lock-On modeling forum about vehicles, LODs, and destruction models for vehicles. Flight simulators have never aimed for that level of detail as a design concern and it makes absolutely no sense from a business standpoint to reduce (or increase depending on how you view it) your ESRB rating to an M while simultaneously embarking on development work which offers little to no return on value for a flight simulator and may introduce certain marketing liabilities. I don't think anyone's calling you a sociopath for wanting gore, it's just ancillary and there are a lot of other features most of the community would like to see.

Okay, so you get 32 slots for free and significant additional with the not for profit license. That makes sense. I run the free one in my test box.

If you want you can host your own server, can't you? I have it on my test box for obvious reasons since I develop against the client API.

What would be the point of re-creating Teamspeak 3 within DCS when Teamspeak 3 is already free?

Yes, RC2 is what I am currently building against. Edit: Small update, I ran a feasibility study on the current DCS public build and it appears that terrain-based radio effects are still on the table based on what can be exported from DCS currently. That doesn't mean you will see this feature in the next release (next release is intended to bring current functionality to TS3 RC2) but that it will continue to be worked on.

This. It's far more immersive to have proper vehicle destruction than infantry gore. BDU in Desert Storm was thrown off to some extent because in many cases 30mm kills to armor ended up being mobility kills and kills that were not immediately evident because tanks did not detonate violently. While it was immediately obvious the effects of an AGM-65 or AGM-114 against tanks, kinetic projectiles do not produce the same feedback outside of the vehicle.