-
Posts
15222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by EtherealN
-
Flaming cliffs 3 mac pro retina
EtherealN replied to sacrista's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Unless it is the very top-range model (the 2500 dollar one), it's just integrated graphics on an i5 or i7, in which case this is to be expected. Those macbook pros have no real ability to run "proper" computer games and are not designed for it. The top-line current model has a 750M and integrated graphics. In that case, the most likely explanation for the problem is that the OS isn't correctly selecting which graphics card to use. Ensure updated drivers and check in the related profiling software whether you can force the computer to use the 750M for DCS World. Sacrista, to say anything that is less speculative, as Skate indicates - we would need to know more about your speciifc machine: CPU, Windows version, graphics card, driver version and date. The easiest way to secure this information is to press Start and type "DxDiag" in the search field. This allows you to select a "save to file" button, and this file can be affixed here through selecting "Go Advanced" under the quick reply box and then selecting the paperclip icon. -
For A, aren't we then exactly here: For B, that's exactly what I was talking about.
-
Unfortunately, it's more complex than "distance" to boom. You need to be flying an effective formation, within specific distance parameters. You need to be both stable and within that "zone". But when flying behind a tanker, what kind of margin are you expecting? You don't need many meters to be INSIDE the tanker aircraft.
-
I'll get some haters here, but... ...if you want to fly longer, but don't want to learn in-flight refueling, there is already a feature to help you: infinite fuel. :P Scrim, perhaps it would help if you were to describe what exactly you envision the aerial refueling aid to do. I don't mean "make it easier", I mean - how exactly would it make it easier?
-
Sim gamer able to start and fly real plane?
EtherealN replied to Benn00's topic in Military and Aviation
250 hours on gliders prepares you for that way more than sims ever will, as far as actual aviating goes. -
Sim gamer able to start and fly real plane?
EtherealN replied to Benn00's topic in Military and Aviation
Sure vincent, but that's a light aircraft, flying at speeds the common man is likely to be relatively used to from automobile traffic. (At landing, at least.) Doing a 180 knot landing in a jet is something entirely different. Doing a landing flare in a large passenger liner, where you are the equivalent of some 6-10 stories up when the maingear touches ground... also something entirely different. But yes, if you compare someone with no clue at all with someone that does have a clue - albeit theoretical - then sure. That's the same as who would you rather have on your side in a firefight - someone that never got closer to combat than shouting foul words on the school playground or someone that spent 10 years playing ARMA or Call of Duty... of course you'll ask for the latter. They might not know how to shoot worth anything, but they'll at least have some sort of idea of what is going on. That said in the case of the simmed UL: don't assume that landing it in sim is easier than IRL. It might actually be harder! The problem isn't necessarily one of difficulty, it is of nature: IRL you have more "input", and "different" input. In-sim you learn other things. Get your sim habits (you know, all of that muscle-memory stuff with the stick, not being used to reading your butt for information, different perspectives of motion due to computer screens etc) and you just might end up doing something that is completely correct _for the sim_ but that gets you killed IRL. Could be as simple as the little difference in how you judge your flare point on landing getting off, leading you to be too late and just slam into the runway, converting yourself into a fireball. But, of course, you also just might be able to do it anyway. Point is: you can't know until you do it. And that's not "safe". Agreed though, if it's either the sim pilot or Johnny farmer... I'll take the sim pilot. -
And, for them lols, could make the virtual boom operator "pick up" the Skill level designated to the aircraft in the mission editor. For those times when you want to really annoy your server's patrons. :D
-
Battlestar Kuznetsov? :D
-
You typed that wall on a mobile? Wow, I've met my match! :D I don't know if this is apokryphal or not, but I remember a story about that MiG-25 that defected to Japan; the americans were surprised to find that it's avionics and computation systems still relied on vacuum tubes - very basic, energy inefficient, less serviceable etc. BUT with an advantage: in a nuclear battlespace, it's a lot less susceptible to damage from the EMP's associated with nuclear blasts. An illustrative difference that might be telling is if we compare a small american fighter like the F-16 with the Swedish JAS-39, the latter has a very different aerodynamic configuration. (Though early in the project SAAB did consider both F-18 and F-16-style configurations.) One of the reasons for this is that the Swedish doctrinal requirement was for a fighter that could operate from roads (the doctrine was that in event of war, combat jets leave the air bases and disperse to "war bases" all over the country, essentially straight stretches of road along the highways with revetments and such hidden next to it). The canard design helped in allowing rediculously short runways in compliance to that without the need of heavy reverser gear as in the JA/AJ-37. (Sadly though, it also removed the awesome ability to parallell park a fighter jet...) (The canard design also helped with other things, of course. But as an example.) For a country like the US, that capability is fairly pointless given their doctrine. So what is a "plus" for Sweden would at best be neutral for the US. Similarly, Sweden does not need long range, since it's a relatively small country that has no real commitments to project force outside of our borders, so while a large fuel tank would be almost essential for the US (plus aerial refueling capability), both of those are at best neutral for Sweden. And both come with added weight, which can negatively affect performance. (Aerial refueling was implemented in the C/D revision, though, and the E/F will be getting bigger tanks, but that is in part due to export considerations but also partly changes being done in our air defense doctrine, with deployments to other countries becoming more relevant - for example Libya and potentially Iceland.) An analogy could be in automobiles: for most people, a normal sedan and an SUV really does just do the same thing - transports you to and from work. But depending on where you live, the SUV might be useful (for example here, we have a lot of snow in winter, and the plows might not have reached your area yet when you need to go to work). If you're in a city, the sedan probably gets the same job done but with better economy. But the job they're asked to do is the same, just in different circumstances. And in jet fighter design, there's a LOT of circumstances, all the way from technology to materiel availability to doctrine and let's not forget - politics. If sweden had been a NATO member, it would be a fair bet that the 39 either wouldn't have gotten made at all (rather 16's or 18's would have been purchased, or perhaps joined the Eurofighter programme), and even if the 39 was made you bet it would have had bigger tanks and aerial refueling from the start even if that slightly lowered performance.
-
Sim gamer able to start and fly real plane?
EtherealN replied to Benn00's topic in Military and Aviation
That was Matt. He coldstarted, got all systems going, and flew a complete mission. But yes, that's "just a sim" too, but it is one of those big fullscale ones. It's definitely possible in real life, but it's important to understand that it is not safe. If you come in from only sim background, do NOT think you can land it. Probably have some issues with takeoff too. The reason being that your visual cues will be way off, so you are very likely to wreck the plane and possibly kill yourself. You'll also have issues with needing to "unlearn" what given control movements mean, since you'll have different arm lengths on the controls and so on. (When I started flying, I had been using a twist-stick in sims, causing me to get a deathgrip with resultant constant overcompensations.) Of course, it also could actually work, too. But think of it like this: If you learn your physics and aerodynamics, you could figure out how fast your car should drive to do a specific jump, and the angles and such that the jump should have to ensure proper alignment etc. And you could theoretically get it done even if you have no experience driving cars. But you really should not do it (and no-one will let you do it with their car) since you'll not be prepared for all the little small things that can totally wreck your day. Like Winz said: it's theoretically possible yes, but not in terms of being a "safe aviator". -
Yup, market gets confused by a reduction in ambiguity. :D You've been given an explanation of the minimum included in an EFM. Previously you did not have that. If you want to know more: ask the developer in question.
-
Possible to choose skin in multiplayer ??
EtherealN replied to Maximus_Lazarus's topic in Multiplayer
Don't worry, I've asked the cockpit, systems, and flight modeling teams to halt work, leave their desks, and just twiddle their thumbs while we wait for this feature. Seriously, we've already spoken to each other. Don't make me talk to you again. Rein in your temper and learned to ask civilized questions. Thankyou. :) Now, on the more pertinent issue: as currently architectured, DCS MP loads missions as a fixed package, and as currently architectured each aircraft texturing is defined by the mission. It is not impossible to fix, but you don't need Cartman. In fact, Cartman's authoritaa is sadly limited in this regard, because he's a fat little kid that hates cats and emulates Hitler. BEEFCAKE! Remember that, when you are asking for this to have priority "over everything else", you are also asking for the issue that was the cause of our latest chat to be dropped. Because it's the MP team (probably) that would have to look into ensuring this works. (And then everyone else would have to dip in to make sure there's nothing breaking in SP due to the changes that were made.) -
Also, a lot of people set up servers for specific purposes. They are groups of friends with specific missions in mind (not just "A2G", but more like literally "that specific mission is todays game night with friends"). I almost never fly on "public" servers, since most of the time when I fly, I am flying with a specific set of friends, usually between 2 and 8 people. We're just not all that interested in bigger, open, servers.
-
A windows reinstall is indistinguishable to the system from a new computer.
-
We were talking about the forum here though. You don't attack the forum via the site anyway. Separate servers. No SSL on forum, so no Heartbleed exploit. To sploit with heartbleed, you'd have had to sploit the site first. You don't gain more account/password combinations through testing the account/password you got from the site through Heartbleed when you check if that account/password combo also works on the forum. You already have them. But okey, it does add the gain of confirming that the stolen account details do work on a web forum where the worst you could do with them is to perhaps ghost-post someone or spam for 5 seconds until the ban is in effect. :P Check this out: Step 1) I 'sploit Heartbleed and gain the username and password you use on the DCS site. Step 2) What do I gain through using your username and password on the forum? Remember, I already have the username and password, clearly. Remember: the forum is not vulnerable to this exploit and never was, so the only way for the forum to be relevant to Heartbleed is if they already gained your account/password combo. You don't gain more accounts through taking ones you already have. ;) However, as I did mention:
-
That means you have 3GB effective. All the cards store the same data, so while you have 9GB total physical vRAM, each of the cards store the same data. This is because each GPU can only access the vRAM on their card (or "half" of card in the case of multi-GPU cards), so when the cards are cooperating on making the same scene, they all need the same data. Your 9GB would be true if you used the cards to drive different displays and different applications - then you'd have 3GB available for DCS, and 3GB each for another two applications. Note that some games will show total vRAM as the 9GB, but in practice that will not be what is available to the process itself in distinct data. EDIT: wait, that's a bit wrong actually, most likely you have 2GB effective, since that's the smallest card involved. In general, you get an effective vRAM availability according to the smallest card involved.
-
Yup, I was actually about to post it here too. A very good one. :)
-
You have posted in the FC1 and FC2 section, so to be sure here: what game are you running? There is no P-51 compatible with FC1 and FC2, and trying to insert the P-51D module into either of those will most likely break the install. If you are using DCS World, which version are you using?
-
I'm looking into it, I'll keep you updated either through the ticket or PM.
-
Here's the "bible", of sorts: http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397245529&sr=8-1&keywords=fighter+combat
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers
-
Yeah, but what I am saying is: why would someone attack the main page (where both our and your "data" is) in order to figure out logins to a forum that... well... allows you possibly to pretend you're someone else, I guess, if you happen get their login. But this is why I from the beginning said that if you have the same password, it's advicable to change it. Basically, I don't even understand what we are arguing about. :D
-
It's not about being calm, many german-speakers don't notice that we do offer a venue to ask questions in german, so I thought to mention it. And while my german is okey (and we have multiple german natives on the team), we like to try to keep that clean. Aber keine Sorgen, Sie können momentan weitermachen unter Bedingung dass die Diskussion nicht fast ausschliesslich Deutsch geführt wird. Sollte der Faden fast vollständig in die Deutsche Sprache übergehen werde ich ihn in die Deutsche Sektion legen. Sie sollten diejehnigen die nicht Deutsch sprechen respektieren, und das inkludiert die Majorität der Englischen Forumadministration.
-
- There are servers of all types. From "Air Quake" to "we pretend we are real pilots", so to speak. Don't worry about which is the typical, worry about what you are interested in. - Starting positions are 100% up to the mission designer. The mission designer is usually affiliated with the server operator. Anyone can be a server operator. So while the "obvious" thing is to have russians fly out of russia, this depends entirely on what the specific server operator wants. There is no uniform answer. - "Teams" start as far apart as the mission designer decides. This varies from extremely close in "AirQuake" to hours apart for "serious" (depends on aircraft type, ofc). - There is no answer to that. It varies too much depending on scenario. - DCS World includes attack aircraft, attack helicopters, jet fighters, ground forces (Combined Arms), etcetera. Playing FC3 online, you are not playing "FC3". You are playing "DCS World", what FC3 does is give you personally access to those aircraft that is included in that package - in those MP servers that have those aircraft available. - Depends on the situation, but as a general rule, I can give a tentative "yes", Yankees high and Russkies low. - Number of aircraft per side is 100% up to mission designer. Also note that which aircraft are available per "side" is also up to mission designer. You can make "matched" sides where both "red" and "blue" have F-15s, Flankers, Migs etc. It's all up to the mission designer. And it's up to you to select the servers you feel give the type of mission you like - we don't limit you artificially, and we don't limit server operators artificially. To each their own. - Labels, again, is up to server operator. Most "open" servers frown upon them, though. Organized "squadrons" definitely tend to frown upon them, too. In closing, you really cannot "simulate" MP with a mission using AI. Especially not simulate "MP" on open servers. The skillset is too varied, where in MP you'll meet everything from actual real life fighter pilots (that will MURDER you) to people that have even less understanding of fighter combat than the lowest "skill level" AI. My recommendation would be to take this time to set up practice BfM scenarios against individual/few AI's, and practice your tactics and geometry that way while reading threads here that discuss how those skills transfer to the "greater picture". Or better yet, reach out to a squadron that is reqruiting, and start getting tips from them to prepare yourself, and when you get your new connection you can go into directed training through that route.