Jump to content

EtherealN

Members
  • Posts

    15222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by EtherealN

  1. Have you checked the spam folder in your email? The activation mails have an unfortunate habit of ending up there.
  2. "NATO standard" does NOT mean they can carry and fire NATO-developed weapons. It means they can talk to NATO CCC and IFF (and potentially use NATO aerial refueling, possibly also a change in engine to allow use of NATO-standardised fuels). This is something else entirely. (Remember, far from all NATO fighters have the capability of firing AIM-7 and -120, since they might be made for other weapon system - the French being a prime example.) And surely you are not seriously suggesting to me that Belarus has fighters capable of firing AIM-7? Pray tell where they would have gotten that compatibility from?
  3. Opened the doors / canopy? Do note though that 25k feet is lower than Mt. Everest, and people have climbed up there even without oxygen. So don't expect instant hypoxia at that level. FL190 is also something I doubt should be that bad of a problem, though easier if you're local to the Himalayas than if you're local to the great plains, of course.
  4. Which country uses R-27 on an aircraft where AIM-7 is even an option? Just in case you weren't aware: no, it is not possible to simply take another missile. You'd have to change a lot in the aircraft, potentially completely replacing radar, computers etcetera. So here's a reason to keep them: money. If you want to think about it some more, note that Poland does not use R-27's on their F-16's. (Which probably wouldn't be practical no possible anyway, for the same reason, though I guess they could have specified to receive other weapons-related equipment on the aircraft when they bought them.)
  5. Old classic.
  6. I checked the ticket, and it is awaiting action by the administrator. Unfortunately, "bumping" through adding posts like that can delay service, since it updates the timestamp on the ticket.
  7. And THERE is right where the irony meter struck the ionosphere. I caution you that you will seriously rethink your behaviour on our forums, or you will be made to leave. You agreed to the rules of the forum when you joined. And the rest of you: come on, please don't feed the trolls. ;) This thread is now closed.
  8. Correct method (aside from contacting customer support to ask abouthe serial number) would be to remove one module at a time until the problem no longer manifests. Then you know which serial number it is that is registered to a different account. Most likely it is A-10C if you purchased this when it was new. To find it, simply use the Password retrieval function on the website and enther whichever e-mail adresses you may have used in the creation of that original online account.
  9. Most likely you used that login originally for A-10C when it was originally released as a stand-alone product. Back then, keys were not "pre-bound" to the e-shop account, but rather were bound to the first account that used it. If you then create another account through the Master Server and use the serial number there, you then bind it to this new account. Later, products purchased through the e-shop became automatically bound to the purchasing account, as preparation for DCS World. So just to clarify: ED didn't "decide" to create a separate account. Rather, it ended up there from when you utilized that serial number on that online account (and those accounts are actually in the same database as the e-ship accounts).
  10. Hi Bucic. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1753897&postcount=755 From earlier in this thread. ;)
  11. One further advantage, btw, from bigger maps, that I didn't think about until now - single-player campaigns. Let's assume said campaigns maintain the same flight distances that are used in todays campaigns - would it still be valuable? Actually - yes! It opens the campaign up to use a wider array of ground force development during the campaign. As an example, think back to the "classic" IL-2 and it's campaigns where you would a little now and then be given a "new" map to fly on, and the front would move with time etcetera. This sudden map shift would be pretty dramatic. If we have a bigger map, such a large-scale war can be "simulated" more fluidly across the map.
  12. I once flew a Beechcraft Baron around the world in MSFS. (Think it was FS2000, might have been the 2004 version, not sure.) Except for the landings and islandhopping that was necessary, I didn't have to do much. :P We are rare, but we exist. :D A more pertinent point there though is that this is not the only reason to have a big map, and it's not like such maps would automatically and by necessity require such long-endurance flights - that's up to the mission designer, of course. But since this is a hardcore simulator, it would be nice to have the option. :) Whether it'll happen considering possible technical issues of such an implementation... That's for the future to show. Not necessarily. What is needed is a solution to the AI issue for such large terrain zones, and possibly also that 32-bit support has to be completely and finally abandoned. Airquake is when the simulator is played in a sort of deathmatch (or team deathmatch) manner. You take off, want to have a quick flight to the combat area, do your fighting, and then either win or die. Rinse and repeat. While it might be a bit unfair in the "Quake" sense, you should see the amount of moaning and complaining that happens when servers put up missions that have even 15 minutes one-way transit to the target... There's also a fair few people that go up, AB to the target area, spam their missiles as best they can, and then either get killed or AB back home to rearm... This thing with being unwilling to have even relatively modest range to target, combined with typically a complete lack of co-operation with one's friends, is what is called AirQuake. (And is also why many servers have passwords that are disseminated through the associated TeamSpeak server - if they weren't locked, they'd fill up with "Airquakers" that spoil the fun for those who want to play "seriously".) Obviously, it's not quite as "bad" as Quake (though I love that game), but you get the point I hope. :) Actually, no, you don't. Just because a map offers the possibility does not mean you have to design every mission like that. Not even if you're in the middle of the pacific ocean with just two widely separated islands on it - since you can always have carriers and stuff in closer proximity. Again, not necessarily. If I have understood things right, one of the big hindrances for DCS has been memory - most specifically, the 32-bit memory space having to be supported, which is problematic when combined with combat, since map areas has to be loaded everywhere you have troops (unless you have "bubbles", which is a different discussion with it's own drawbacks). Now, exactly what can be done in this department between 32-bit getting dropped and what's coming from EDGE, I don't know. But as you'll recall, the omission of the Crimea from DCS was caused originally by memory restrictions when Georgia got included - and the current map already is a good bit bigger than what we had back in FC1. So I think it certainly is possible that we'll see bigger things without having to sacrifice detail (at least compared to the current map's level of detail). Just a question of when it'll happen, and exactly how much bigger it is possible to go - there I don't have any answer. Thing is - there is no conflict. What does the mainstream user specifically lose from a larger map? Nothing. Indeed, he actually gains something, since that map will itself offer more variation in mission location. The way I see it, there is no single correct answer when it comes to the size of new maps, even if large ones mean less detail: we need both smaller but more detailed maps, as well as larger maps that offer greater mission variety. One map might do itself better for CA and Helo use, while another might serve better for A2A gameplay. While I'm not technically on ED payroll as an employee of the company, I am involved in ED Customer Support. You can probably consider me a pseudo-staffer or something there. :P (Incidentally, yes, this does mean you can ask me Customer support questions.) But as far as game design decisions and the general development aspects as relates to this thread, yeah, there I'm just a "regular joe".
  13. Also note that pointing the nose down while in BVR mode does not point the radar dish down. It will remain on your setting relative to the horizon until it hits gimbal limits. (Flood mode and similar acquisition modes are a different thing, of course.)
  14. This part already gets done. :) Though of course, good question whether the same code can be used for real-time-comms. Hopefully.
  15. Transatlantic isn't the point. He's talking about being able to create missions where the effective combat radius of the simulated aircraft become truly relevant. Not for the airquake people, of course, but for serious squads it would actually be really nice.
  16. Well, to be honest, I think it would be like in the Battlefield games (well, I've never played BF3 online so maybe it has changed) - it will be used by some, and be awesome for them; a good way to effectively encourage co-operation even on "random-join" servers (as opposed to organized groups of friends playing, ie squads). Definitely has a place, but of course the big question is: would enough people use it to be worth the development costs? I honestly don't have a clue there.
  17. Let's put it like this: even if everyone that has logged into this forum in the last 12 months had done it, I still don't think it would show up as a serious blip in the stats. This "buy-extra" phenomenon is a very small one, and self-selects for the "fanatic" so to speak - which also happens to be the population that self-selects to "show up" on the forum, which means that the forum posts will give a very wrong impression of the habits of the general population.
  18. Or, of your objective is specifically to support, simply purchase the same module several times. :D You can always offer the extra serial numbers you won't use to a friend. That way, you can support AND give the "right signals" at the same time. :) But to be serious for a moment, I really doubt that there is a sufficient amount of people buying modules they don't want in order to "support" to change the statistics meaningfully. Only the really hard-core fans do that.
  19. That's not what he means, I think. A lot of people use Teamspeak addons and similar things to have their teamspeak channels directed automatically by how the in-game radio is set. Is there some specific thing that is wrong with the radios in the DCS modules?
  20. Pyramids worked fine in Falcon and Chuck Yeager. :( Pyramid power!
  21. Your question cannot be answered, because there is insufficient information. ONLY if literally EVERYTHING else in the project is already complete can you make that assumption. Why are you assuming such things? Please check my last response once more.
  22. How about this then: Project X has two parts. A and B. A is expected to require 2 years. B is expected to take 1 year. Shoul part B's coders spend 1 year on paid vacation, or might it be useful for them to spend that free year on something else, preferably within their field? And no, it is not (necessarily) possible to speed up part A. Too many chefs etcetera.
  23. Sorry I'm late, flew to russia and have been busy. :) First: where did ED state that? And no, even if that was true, a and b does not follow. Serioulsy, I do not understand where you get those ideas from. It is different people that work of different parts, according to their speciality. This is exactly the same thing as why you don't have an artist do netcode. Also, something being difficult is not (necessarily) the same as that thing taking more man-hours. (Percentage of available man-hours adjusted for their specialities might be different though, and other projects - including military - might of course influence this.) Everything depends on the available resources. But specifically, to your question: how did you reach the conclusion that: 1) F-15C and Su-27 will be given AFM's. 2) These aircraft will, in future, be developed into A-10C level modules. ...lead you to concluding that they were delayed by this? Your conclusion requires that "A-10C level" does not require - indeed should not have - an AFM. THAT is my point. And the MA project indicates this quite nicely, as you are aware. So... since when do the avionics people develop AFMs? Yes, the avionics are a massive deal. But what you need to remember is that it is different people doing it. (And no, telling people of another speciality to do it instead does not mean it gets done faster nor better, same way you don't tell a sysadmin to write an operating system.) See my point now?
  24. You forgot to attach the file. :P
  25. This is not about hidden files, this is about file name endings. Completely different thing - "hidden" files are to prevent you from deleting important system files and such things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename_extension
×
×
  • Create New...