EtherealN

Skepticism is the best thing we have as a civilization. What you are referring to isn't skepticism, it's stupidity, malice, prejudice, bigotry and ideology. They all like to use the word skepticism, but that's not what they are. ;)

SinCityJet, stop trolling. Yes, trolling. See this question of yours: "What was his rank in the military.. was he a pilot? What did he fly and with whom?" Giving that question to the statement in question simply means you have no clue what it meant, or intentionally misrepresented it. So I'll give you this opportunity to cease this behaviour and start giving rational objections.

"Must spread rep..." :D

On the right track there. :D Physically: 29 Mentally: Err... 5? :D

Microprose (and Falcon) didn't die because "money stopped being available" in the investment sense that seems implied here. Microprose went bankrupt because it spent WAY more money developing it's sims (like Falcon 4) and their overambitious features (like the DC) than simmers - even back then in the "golden age of flight sims" - were prepared to pay for. There simply were not enough simmers out there to pay for it. And there's not really more of us now either; but sims themselves have become way more expensive to make. In a mainstream gaming forum I get the opposite impression. Sandbox game concepts are some of the biggest moneymakers on the planet (Hello Minecraft! :D ), and dynamic gameplay is huge. There is only one thing stopping it from getting done "right" in a quick way in a real simulator; there's just way too few simmers out there. The "golden days" weren't because there were more simmers, just that simmers as a portion of "gamers" was way bigger than now. When I grew up, I didn't know anyone that had a gaming computer that did not also own a flight sim. Not a single one. But of course, I didn't know very many that did have a gaming computer at all... Nowadays I barely know of any home (I guess my grandmother's maybe?) that does not have at minimum a console. But anyways, this thread was supposed to be about "DCS Tank Simulator". We are here just reiterating the same arguments that have been gone over a million times in the threads that actually deal with that topic. :P

Falcon BMS did not. Falcon 4, developed by Microprose, did. That company does not exist anymore. Figure. :) Indeed, the guy who made those portions has said he wouldn't do it that way if he started such a project now, based specifically on his experience of working on making a DC. While I would personally disagree that anyone, any time, has ever made an "amazing" dynamic campaign, there's no hard limitation against doing it. But when it comes to making a good return on investment from such endeavours, that is when things get interesting - and Falcon is not a good example here because... Well, Microprose is dead, and the people that bought the rights and put out F4AF... Well... Yeah. ;) Obviously though, this has all been gone through a couple hundred times in the threads that deal with DCs.

Someone mentioned my fav plane? :D Yeah, Grimes has it right. :)

It's advantages are more than just stealth though. But there's a massive thread about that, too. :D http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=35070 In fact, come the morrow I think I'll probably merge this thread into that one.

"That site" has been the subject of a lot of... *cough* debate *cough* over the years. :P Do a search on the forum for "Carlo Kopp" and you'll get a lot of hits. One accusation is that he has a political agenda (rejection of the F-35 in favor of attempted purchase of F-22, and love of the F-111) and exhaggerates russian equipment to further this. Okey resource as long as you know to add spoons of salt. This is a fully independent "think-tank" (funded by advertisements, not funding by interested organizations, militaries or corporations, and thus without special access), so add the same layer of skepticism as you would to any other internet source.

Asking about "FPS" is futile. To get any meaningful information you must specify a track to run and track FPS through it. All computers will have variable FPS depending on the situation. Can illustrate with this, which comes from a test run I did to look at some of the "popular" performance issues in a previous version of DCS World. Now, obviously, this run was there to look at a couple specific performance issues, running the same track several times with various checks, so the huge variability here isn't really "normal" in the sense of being as intended. But if you look at the first and third portions, you'll see that even though all units still exist, what they are doing and where I am looking at the time can have a considerable effect on your measured FPS rates. Incidentally, some of our users have already started running a benchmarking thread. You can find that thread over here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=108231

Indeed. :D (My emphasis) Why?

It is saying "Invalid Serial Number" because your license is already tied to an account - the account you used in purchase. Simply log in with the same account you purchased the product on.

Which is what he said, isn't it? :) Basically, he means that it's not really a "very strange" speed, it's "not far off". Basically, it is somewhere around 0.1 mach too fast. Was this level flight, and what was the pressure and temperature? (For example, if temp is 30C, we're looking at a ~0.05 error.)

Could you please show me a screenshot with this issue? Also, what is your hardware, operating system, and driver configuration?

Could you describe the issue in some more detail? There are several possible causes here. If the issue occurs in multiplayer only, you need to make sure you are using the account login details to the online server that correspond with the account you used to purchase the products. If you are talking about the singleplayer activation window, please ensure that you are entering the correct serial number. It will ask for all currently inactive modules, not just the one you are starting a mission for. See this image: I have not been made aware of any current activation server issues, but if these checks fail, I will inquire.

Massively a case of "what about the rest?" With my cheapish retail-standard 2-1 speaker setup, there is no difference at all between my onboard Realtek and my expensive addin sound card. With my 300 dollar Sennheisers? Oh yeah... there is a difference. ;) (EDIT: And yea, Feuerfalke, I remember we hads this discussion way way back. You were right. :P )

Just to be sure: are you putting in the BS1 serial number? Note that BS2 does not activate on the BS1 serial number. It requires a BS2 serial number. If you purchased BS2 Upgrade, make sure to select International Upgrade during install.

What is your ticket number?

This is the thing you fail to understands. In the 10 years since LOMAC, DCS has gotten bigger terrain. Not by orders of magnitude, no. In the 10 years since OFP, ARMA has gotten bigger terrain. Not by orders of magnitude, no. The problem here is that you are saying the DCS engine is "old" and various other things, towards simulating armored warfare, while holding the ARMA engine as some sort of good example. Subject of thread: "DCS Tank Simulator Possible?" Answer: Yes. The engine supports everything you would need to do an A-10C level simulation of tank combat. Say that about ARMA? The engine supports everything you would need to simulate actual warfare, without being limited to platoon level skirmishes - which is ARMA's limitation. What ARMA does is give you the platoon level combat, asks you to suspend disbelief (which I happily do while in a ground vehicle), and get this wrapped in a pretty-looking graphical presentation - just don't EVER step even close to an aircraft, fixed or rotary, because suddenly you'll notice how your balls just got chopped off. :P Further question is: if OFP was good enough 10 years ago - and it was! - imagine what Bohemia could have done to make the flight thing at least sort of functional, or the map at least somewhere relatively big enough to actually be home to something bigger than a domestic disturbance; if it wasn't for people drooling over screenshots and thus forcing that arcade game to stick to it's shooter maps... ;)

My point is that the "huge map" you talk about is not big enough to simulate any armored conflict in the history of humanity. I did a quick look around, and the smallest battle I could find that included active air and mechanized components was Mogadishu. ~1700km² Ooops. (And air components were sourced from outside that. Not so in ARMA.) This is the huge difference: take that same picture in a simulator that allows cooperation of airborne assets at realistic ranges as well as the human control of the supported ground forces. You cannot do that in ARMA 3. Impossible. The idea of basing the active air component on Lemnos while fighting is ongoing there is, quite simply, rediculous. It's laughable. It's cartoon country. As for driving a tank from one end to the other: you are the one that said the map was, I quote, "huge". Here's what I'm saying: deploying tanks to Lemnos is retarded. Conducting armored warfare on Lemnos is retarded. Thus the premise you are defending is... yeah, a cartoon. As far as simulatin actual warfare, you might as well play Battlefield. Driving a tank from one end of the ARMA battlefield to the other takes about 45 minutes. How is that huge? That isn't even the START of a batlle. ;) ARMA 3 chose Lemnos to get a good mix of suspension of disbelief while still giving a good gameplay experience for infantry and armored warfare at platoon level. But this is not warfare that would ever happen on Lemnos, simply because whoever had air superiority would JDAM the crap out of everything on the island that looked funny. And in the DCS engine, the guys that fly aircraft would see the entirety of Greece in their scopes, while the guys that fly aircraft in the ARMA engine can't even reach their operational altitude because the graphics engine doesn't have the power to support it. Juist look at the picture you posted. Fadeout at 10km. How am I to use anything airborne when the graphics engine blocks me from seeing halfway through my weapon's engagement envelope? And given the size of the map, I'll overfly it in two minutes anyway...

Okey. :D You asked for it. :) I asked the official site, and Bohemia themselves (I have a friend there, btw) clock it in at... 270km². So, that's the place where you're fighting a full-on modern war! Awesome. Basically, you are conducting a war in Queens... Yes, one of the boroughs of New York. Not New York State. Not New York City. Just one borough. Awesome. At the same time... DCS Georgia: 125 000km² When I did the calculation, I only conted actual terra firma - terrain that is "populated" (that is, has buildings, roads, forests, and so on). So in DCS there is more actually, since your ARMA does it's "borders" through a borderless ocean rather than having to conform with reality. Actually, my local commune (the smalles government division in Sweden) is Forshaga. It is 397,29km². So almost twice the size of your "huge island"? Population 11 267. Shall I continue to the technical details? :)

Hahah! Thanks! That was so "obvious" I didn't think of it either. Rep for Winz! :D

Ten years behind which standard? The standard for shooters?

May I then suggest that you qualify your statements to explain this view of your preferences? Otherwise you are just assuming that the OP has the same interests you have. ;)

Do you have any Virtual Machines running or similar?