EtherealN

Please consider that in the simulator, we're not talking about just a "if 45km then detect". Different aircraft will be detected at different rangers, and the same aircraft will have different detection ranges depending on aspect, exhaust etcetera. The simulator needs to account for all of this. And do recall that when you read, on a website or similar, that detection range is "45km", this is full of qualifiers; which aircraft, which aspect, which throttle setting and - even - which atmospheric conditions? So please do consider that it is actually pretty hard to find underlying algorithms that give correct behaviour, especially considering that the REAL performance data is most likely top secret and the numbers that filter out into the open are typically "sanitized".

MOOOOOONSTER KILL! :D

Guys, do not rely on arbitrary measures like a "percentage" of GPU utilization. It tells you nothing. Just like CPU's, GPU's have many different components that do different jobs. Easiest way to illustrate is the example of integer vs float operation in CPU's: they're done on different computational units. So, if your program relies heavily on floating point computation (hello simulators!), and your CPU has a lot of integer computation power (hello AMD!) but very little float (hello again AMD!), most of the actual hardware will have nothing to do because you're waiting for the few float resources to get their thing done before the integer cores get the indata they need to do their thing. The same thing happens in GPU's; there's all sorts of memory buses, different types of computational units (the fixed pipeline is long gone, but there's still different types of computational clusters in that silicon), and not to forget the simple fact that the CPU first has to tell the GPU what to do - and under Dx9, it also has to mirror the vRAM data in system RAM. Basically, I urge you to ignore percentage marks on hardware utilization as a measure of performance margins compared to other hardware. Having free integer units on a CPU means that if you simultaneously run an integer-intensive program, you might not notice a performance impact, but running two float-intensive programs at the same time will - and in the latter case, the performance degradation will happen while your monitor is telling you there's lots of free "percentage" left... To figure out what your bottleneck is you need to look at the hardware more closely - indeed it might be as simple that relevant parts of drivers are more mature on X hardware than Y hardware, causing Y hardware to perform worse (or to no benefit compared to X) even though Y is nominally more powerful. AMD FX-series processors had this problem initially; they're not actually bad processors, but they have a weird design (where there's only one float unit per two processor cores), which caused a lot of issues when the operating system scheduled threads. I believe Microsoft has fixed it in up-do-date versions of 7 and 8, but not entirely certain.

And how do you propose flight model engineers should help with netcode, or map people fix crashes? ;) Each field has their own specialists, and they all need work to do.

Possible, at least. I actually don't know for sure. It is also possible that BST got a contract for an Mi8 and subcontracted ED to make the Corsica map. That way, even though ED made the underlying simulation tech as well as the map, they'd still be a subcontractor below BST and thus not show. That's what I mean: we shouldn't even try to decipher those things. It's a web of transient business collections that regularly change between each project, so while we can entertain ourselves by guessing, the only way we could know for sure would be to have access to the relevant contracts - and said contracts probably have non-disclosure clauses attached. Meaning that the people who know aren't able to talk. And that the arrangement in one deal can be reversed in another. Think of it like this: I make an industrial PLC system for control of machinery. Typically the manufacturer is Mitsubishi - a huge company. I get a relationship with them, and I score a couple of specialized applications for which I need them to make a few changes. They do these changes, and as part of the deal I get to rebrand the tech. It now carries my name, even though Mitsubishi builds the PLC's, made the origin system, made the necessary modifications, and I just did some end-user stuff on top with a relabel... It's my name that will be there and just because it's my name there we cannot assume that I developed the PLC. All of that said: EDGE is made by ED. PERIOD.

You should contact customer support for this, and it can be achieved. Note that if you purchased through Steam or another vendor, you should contact them.

You are wrong here, you are confusing NEVADA with EDGE. Back in the days, a third party group were developing a Nevada map for inclusion with DCS A-10C. This used the same engine as is used by Georgia. This effort fell through for a bunch of reasons, and ED assumed control of the Nevada map, using it as the testbed for EDGE. The third party development project you are referring to had absolutely nothing to do with EDGE. It was a map of the NTTR using the OLD IG, same as Georgia. The NTTR today, using EDGE, is re-done from scratch but using some of the resources from that previous project.

Military contracts are a web of subcontractors. Don't try to decipher it, it's futile. :P

Sharpe, you seem to be under the understanding that aircraft selection is based on customer demand purely. It is not. Selection for development is very much dependent on availability of documentation, SME's etcetera. A-10C information gained through making the military DTS for the USANG, for example. And also, being bored because you're not multirole? Say that to the tonnes of people that nigh exclusively flight Su-27, MiG-29 or F-15C in FC. Or, for that matter, the Su-25T. When I started the T-Frog was what I flew. Not being a able to self-escort against air superiority assets didn't bother me. Multirole is over-estimated in that department.

No, you didn't "point it out". You asserted it. We asked for evidence. Your evidence does not stand up to scrutiny because it's logic is faulty. The assertion is also just plain false. EDGE is developed by Eagle Dynamics. Period.

Is that Alexei Smirnov, Eagle Dynamics, Effects and Graphics? ;) Seriously Aldega, what are you on about? FACTS: EDGE is made by Eagle Dynamics. ED partners have access to this. This includes (but is not necesarily limited to) BST and RRG. ED has a studio in Minsk. Belsimtek is not another name for this studio. Belsimtek is a separate company that develop products in partnership with Eagle Dynamics. The people interviewed in these videos are not exclusively RRG or BST staff. See the interview with Yo-Yo. Please just put your tinfoil hat aside.

Areas of work may change. (And I may misidentify the Dima in question, "Dima" is not an actual name, it's a nickname - sort of like how "Robert" becomes "Dick" in english. Usually, but not always, on the root om Dimitriy.) No, Eagle Dynamics has it's own studio in Minsk. Has had for a long time. This studio is not Belsimtek. It is Eagle Dynamics. Belsimtek is a separate company partnered with Eagle Dynamics.

Eagle Dynamics has a studio in Minsk.

There's always witchcraft. :P In fact, a major halloween party going on in the guest-floor while I'm quietly remembering that I deploy to a customer tomorrow morning. I'm grumpy. :D

Dmitry Baikov. (I think.) Eagle Dynamics, responsible for systems, multiplayer and sound engine according to DCS A-10C flight manual. ;) I see your 3-minute attention span and check the manual for 30 seconds. :)

EDGE is developed by Eagle Dynamics. RRG is an ED Partner company, and as part of their Kickstarter they made videos including discussions with ED staff. To counter your inference: in the FM video, they talked with Dmitry Moskalenko, a.k.a "Yo-Yo". Are you saying that through appearing in that video, he is no longer working for ED? ;) Crossreference the names and listen carefully to the video, and you'll find that several of the people in the interviews are ED staff. RRG uses ED's technology as a close partner. Nothing weird there.

They have the distinct disadvantage of being kinda hard, though. Not really conceptually, but there is a barrier to entry since a lot of it is non-intuitive. (Classic case of non-intuitive stuff in orbital mechanics is how you, through adding energy twice in a Hohmann (sp?) transfer, actually end up flying slower. Easy once you internalise the whole "problem", but at first it does look weird. After that the very interesting study of the recession of the moon's orbit due to the interaction of tides and the earth's rotation, which probably is my favourite, though that is in competition with the future fates of Mars' two moons.) That said, I am actually a fan of Sci-fi. But most specifically of "hard" sci-fi; that is, where the author makes a well executed attempt to extrapolate from known science to paint a plausible conclusion of "what the future might bring". Alastair Reynolds is a good one there - a plausible, still entertaining, depiction of a possible future multi-stellar "civilization" without taking shortcuts around the speed of light. (Though he does touch on that area slightly, but that would reach into spoilers - suffice to say, it's well handled.)

In which case this thread has run it's course. I'll lock it. But seriously, your post was not clear in intent. I mean it seriously; post a direct question that can be understood and it would both stay and probably get response.

Protip: if you have a specific question, it serves well to ask the specific question. For example, if you want to inquire about updates, you can do something like this: "Hey, it's been a while since we got some updates. Is something up? Any ETA on progress updates?" See, that there is clear in purpose. Feel free to try that.

Your post is where it belongs. If you disagree with what he did, please PM me. Don't wind up on it further. I'll give this thread a chance to develop into something fun. As for what's going on: just moderatin' some dudes, checking my BANRAAM stocks, and generally thinking about which game I should play tonight.

Is this a non-pictoral Mower?

I'm definitely a fan of this ship: http://news.yahoo.com/captain-kirk-navy-destroyer-135551630.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CcqhHJSCloAYP7QtDMD

Sandy Bridge is faster than the 930. However, don't stare yourself blind on clock speeds; that's just a metronome, and doesn't really give the whole picture about how "fast" a processor is. In a rough guesstimate, I would suspect that the difference in DCS between the 930 and newest Haswells would be around 30% on a for-clock basis; that is, a 4.5GHz Haswell will be 30% "faster" than a 4.5GHz 930. If it was myself, I wouldn't bother upgrading just yet. This does, however, also require that you do not have other bottlenecks as well; for example graphics cards. Depending on which graphics card you currently have a CPU upgrade might simply mean that your new CPU will have idle time when running high graphics settings since everything has to sit and wait for your graphics card.

Hahah, I even forgot to be upset at the allegation of humanity. I'm an AI! :D

Can add one quick thought to the whole orbits and newtonian physics things: SFAL, if thrust is required to stay in orbit, how does the moon do it? It's got no engines, yet is actually slowly boosting away from the earth. Guess what explains how this works? Newtonian mechanics! ;) So really, when I say you might want to be careful in your assumptions of knowledge, I'm quite serious. And incidentally, the functions of orbital mechanics are, in cases like this, just awesomely beautifu. I recommend it. :)