sweinhart3

Dunno if flying helo is more complictated. Depends on what you compare it to. Different than fixed wing, sure is.

Welcome to actual flight dynamics where you actually have to learn the system. Just having a joystick and throttle and expecting to jump in and fly isnt good enough. It takes time, patience, and actually reading the flight manual and watching the instruction videos to get any decent flying skills. Read up and practice. Once you learn it, its so much more enjoyable than the other sims out there where you can just jump in and expect to be able to blow stuff up. Its almost like; its real or something.

also button 1 on your joystick is not the same as button 1 on the first mfd and button 1 on the second mfd.

they would probably scramble some jets and shoot you down in a hurry if you try to overfly it much less land.

was supposed to be a joke. omg

We all know Area51 doesnt really exist. Its just a bunch of made up stories for ET theorists. It shouldnt be in the sim lol. The satelite images are just some really good paintshop.

why not? isnt that essentially what a helicopter like Blackshark does?

Im using a plama 50" with mine. Only possible issue Ive seen is screen burn in if part of the display is not moving at least a little bit during extended periods. Its not really very noticeable and its not permanent, but if you pause the game for 15minutes you might get a little bit of residual burn in that will go away after a few min. LED tv is better, but they are also twice the cost.

There is really no reason to not use a 64bit OS. Drivers have not been an issue for a few years now unless you are really using some antiquated hardware that has no software support. Using a 32bit OS will just cripple your ability to run a 64bit executable. A 32bit OS might support up to 4GB including your video ram, but the OS keeps programs from using more than 2GB in the run time environment. This isnt a limitation with 64bit code.

Any company that makes software that would only run on the latest and greatest hardware would not have much of a customer base. It would be silly not make any business sense. Directx 9.0 is almost 10years old however, and it would equally not make much business sense to program for a 10year old API.

Its entirely possible to employ rockets using the standard autopilot. Its just a bit harder to keep the aircraft aiming reticle exactly where you want it.

Why the hostility? DX has always been backwards compatible. You may not get the additional eye candy on older hardware but I havent seen a single game that would not run on hardware that met minimum performance requirements. Some of these remarks are totally uncalled for.

I can hit larger targets with rockets no problem, but small targets with pinpoint accuracy you can just about forget about. Using short bursts is usually a waiste of ammo for me cause I cant hit anything with 2 rockets. Medium bursts give you the best bang for your buck. Flight Director and a good trim is key.

Sure would be cool if they integrated water graphics like that into a sim. The bi-plane certainly doesnt suggest an avionics intensive platform.

Bah I havent had 1 instance where using ecm and chaff/flare helped me lose a missle post launch. Hitting the deck has been my only hope.

I hate steam. Cant stand having to log in everytime I boot up to be able to play a game. Ill stick with the regular digital download burned to dvd.

Even with DX11 it may look almost exactly the same as the DX9 version. It opens up more possibilities for ED to enhance the visuals but unless they add those features, it could just be functionality upgrade for future development. There was a lot of talk awhile back that DCS:WH would use the same engine as BS, but with them moving to DX11 and 64bit, seems to me its more new than the same, or at least headed in that direction.

Quad cores work just fine with BS. You just wont get 100% cpu utilization. Keep in mind that not all cores are created equally and Ghz isnt the only factor. For instance, a Core i7 860 which runs at 2.8Ghz will outperform a core i5 670 running at 3.46Ghz in a lot of tests. For some good benchmarking numbers check out this site. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

they got broken some more

Its not perfect and requires a few more button hits than just pushing 1, 2, 3 and firing away, but what your asking is possible. Cage the shkval. If your target point is already saved on the abris, select your target on the datalink so its blinking. Hit the ingress to target on datalink. Uncage shkval. It should autoslew to your target point.

I think the problem is the kind of physics it computes. GPUs are designed to take 100s and 1000s of iterations of a model and compute individual particle physics or AI on each one. You dont do that in a flight sim. You dont go blowing up 100s of AI or ever even come across numbers like that. Flight Sim physics is about aerodynamic calculations, and Im pretty sure that mostly the next variable is dependent on the previous which doesnt lend itself to parallel computing. Thats not to say that other things cant run in parallel, but massive parallel computing just isnt really part of those kinds of physics calculations.

always lol

Yes in the middle position, the aircraft will not gather altitude data for the altitude hold switch from either radar or barometric pressure. It effectively disables the altitude hold as far as I know.

could easily be wrong but the the receipt says ETA 15days.

Civil Air Patrol used to drop bombs on submarines in WWII, but I dont remember what aircraft they flew. Cessnas are all they fly now. You could make it a two person sim with a pilot and a bomber dropping bombs by hand.