Jump to content

Trinitry

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I can't understand that people are complaining about the price of this masterpeace of simulation. 59$ is a joke compared to the work which has flown obviously into DCS Warthog. For me it doesn't matter if I get good graphics in an evolutionary way, based on an old engine or done from scratch, the result matters. The graphics in A10 is a really big step forward from Blackshark and Blackshark was a big step forward from Flaming Cliffs. If you don't belive in screenshots, which partly are looking photorealistic, take a look into youtube-viedeos and tell me you see no progress. Everywhere you can see comparisons which are showing the multicore-cababilitys of different games. Most of this games are taking advantage of 2 cores if at all. Many games have support for 4 cores but take a look how they scale from 2 to 4 cores. To argue the gaming-industry makes use of multicore-machines since years is not true at all. They are starting slowly to do it and for most games the multithreading is very inefficient. I'm so happy that there is a developer going the route of hardcore-sims todays, where most companys don't see any market in this.
  2. CPU: AMD X6 1090 @3,8ghz Mainboard: Gigabyte Cooling: Muggen 2 RAM: 4 gb DDR3 GPU: NVIDIA GTX 460 WIN 7 64 Bit Game-Settings: Textures = High Scenes = Medium Civ.Traffic = Off Heat Bluer = On Shadows = Low Water = Low Resolution = 1920x1080 AA = 8Q FSAA = On HDR = On Fullscreen = On I get between 16 and 60 FPS in quickstart-mission with standard-settings (summer, clear sky, easy, 12:00). Starting on the runway I have about 30-32 FPS. This is , if at all, only slightly better as my core2duo at 3,6 ghz, I had before. I have to admit that I made a wrong decission with upgrading to the X6. I was not able to get more than 3,8 ghz out of the cpu, some will go up to 4,2 with air-cooling. But looking to an I5-760 which should be savely overclockable up to 4,8ghz, and Intel is faster with same clockspeed, I think Intel is currently clearly the stronger competitor regarding performance as well as value. But I'm not unhappy with my system, I would only make another decission If I could choose again.
  3. Hello, I have this also with my TIR4. It helps a lot to put on your cap with an higher angle, so that the reflectors are looking slightly upwards and then reseting the view. In result, when you are looking downwards, the reflectors will be recognized better. In addition, raising the smoothing in the TIR-Software will make the view more stable.
  4. Hi, I really respect the great effort of the ED-team to modell every aspect of the A10, but I think this effort should be spent also on the realism of ground-contact, which for now gives me not the impression of landing a real plane. For example: When I run over the runway into the green with takeoff-speed, nothing speacial happens, where I would expect that at least small obstacles would do heavy damage to the plane and prevent it to hold a straight course. If I have an emergency condition, I can land everywhere where the terrain looks flat, allthoug one can expect that between runways and big roads nearly nowhere in reallity the terrain would allow a save landing even for a plane with a very solid structure. I know that it is not possible to modell every small obstacle which occurs in real terrain, but I think this should be modelled at least in a statistical form, where a happy landing is only possible in rare cases on open terrain. Also the behavior of the A10 when landing on a proper runway seems to me way to forgiving but this is of course only my personal impression which I can't back up with any personal experience, since I have never flown a real plane by my self. But I really would expect a more realistic behavior of the simulated plane when trying to do an emergency-landing on open field. Sorry to bring up this topic again, I've allready opened a threat on this a time ago, but this subject is really importand for me. Please understand that there are people which don't take the main focus onto avionics and combat-realism. There is really no other flight-simulator which addresses ground-physics in the way, DCS does, the challenge of landing in Flaming Cliffs was allways great for me and with A10 this is completely gone. If it is not neccessary to bring the plane correct onto the runway because it makes no difference if you touch ground before it or roll over, or land it somewhere elese in the dessert and the only thing that happens is a broken front-gear the challenge is somewhat missing.
  5. OK -the A10 is really rugged and built for provisoric runways. However it seems a bit overeasy to me, how groundconact is simulated. Particularly I mean landing away from any runway or streets. It should be taken in account, that, lets say 99% of even flat terrain would not allow a plane to land on it without damage because of small bumps, humidity, etc... If I can land the A10 on every place which looks flat on the screen it does not feel realistic to me, and there is some "missing challenge" , to find in case of emergency a runway or at least a street to land on it,like it was neccessary in flaming cliffs. This feeled realism of groundcontact-simulation in FC was always a big advantage of FC in comparison to Flight Simulator or X-Plane. Of course its only my oppinion, but I would wish that future version will make landings a bit more challenging, where you have to make intensive search for a suited place if you want to bring your bird down aside of a runway.
  6. Hi, I'm wondering,if landing the A10 in real-life is that easy like in the sim. I have the feeling, I can land this bird nearly everywhere with bad angles and high speeds without any or at least serious damage. Compared to FC it is a night and day differnce to me. Perhaps it is because of beta-state, or is the A10 really that rugged? ps.: The flight-model seems wonderfull to me and I'm so happy, ED has put out the beta allready, so please don't get me wrong - I was just a bit surprised about the landing like it is simulated right now.
  7. To me it seems also more realistic to switch the trees off at all. Perhaps it is possible by modifying an ini-file?
  8. I have the same problem. I've tried to map the LAlt-C Key (mouseview-switch) to the right mousebutton, but it did not work.
  9. Hello, I'm very happy with blackshark, the arrival of the English version before christmas was a great surprise. But the "ghost"-trees are a really big drawback for me and nearly a showstopper. I think it was OK with Lock On (FC), but its absolutely not OK with a heli-sim like blackshark. I hope this issue is on top of the todo-list from the developers. I'am not experienced with the mission-editor of dcs blackshark and don't know, if the engine of the game can handle areas with very much objects like forests performancewise. I mean if it is possible to remove the trees and replace them with normal solid objects?
×
×
  • Create New...