davek1979

Eh... does it ? :-) Honestly, the last thing I want is to start some flow of sour comments, but these "old Falconeers praises" are really annoying in general, especially because they seem to be mostly based on "good old times" and melancholy rather than critical observation. F4 didn't hold it's own graphically since like 2003. I look at a piece of ground in F4 and - I'm lost. It all looks the same, grid after grid of the same stuff. Forest alternates with farmland. Forest alternates with snowy mountain. And those nasty squares... Squares, squares, whoever had this graphical concept in mind must have loved squares. One must endlessly consult a map to get some clue because terrain doesn't give any, especially without sea shores. I look at a piece of ground in LockOn and know... that is the valley behind the Sochi-Adler airbase leading to Krasnaya Polyana. And this is the typical landscape around Maykop. These fields are not square. The placement of forests is natural. No imaginary forester is cutting them into square shapes. Call me a hater or whatever, I'm not bashing the flight model here (while I suspect the barrel rolls in F4:AF to be a bit arcade :-)) or systems modeling or whatnot - it's solely the graphics. Stop pardoning those graphics already. It belongs to a time far ago, like a decade or so now. Hitiles did nothing more than add some res to the same old tile in most cases. Respect to F4 of it's time, respect to your good memories, but please! P.S. I love you all so much! Really. :-)

What do you mean ? Of course there's lot to fly with, it's just about to convert into X-Wing... :-)

Exactly. Modules should all be by default interoperable and interconnected via DCS underlying system. I.E. - whichever aircraft you feel like flying today, you start the appropriate module, get online and join any mission that counts with that module. In that mission might be other guys with other modules. That's my understanding of DCS.

No, I understand just right, but thanks for the explanation anyway. I never expected to start up Shark and choose Hog.

Wow now that's a disappointment! I thought in few years time entire air forces would be battling it out in the DCS environment, helis and fixees to all heart's liking... Even if reasons for this step-down from the original masterplan are not yet known to the community, is there anyone in ED cool enough to explain ? :-P Thanx GG.

Thank you for the short answer. This quote is taken right from the "www.digitalcombatsimulator.com" frontpage : "Due to the increased flexibility of the DCS system, additional fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter add-ons will follow shortly." Read: "Add-Ons". That implies an underlying system with which they are all compatible. I might be the only one seeing the logic, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong mate. So that NOPE of yours feels a bit lightweight. If you don't have a proper answer or can't point me to a link with proper answer, the fix is easy - don't answer, there is a bunch of great people around who might. Peace.

Sorry if this has been answered before, but this little quote just hurt my eye while reading the FAQ.Wasn't the whole point of DCS interconnectedness of the modules ?Why is it being presented as a "hope to release compatibility patch" ? "Q: Will DCS: A-10C Warthog be online-compatible with DCS: Black Shark and Flaming Cliffs 2? A: We hope to be able to release a compatibilty patch for DCS: Black Shark after release. Compatibility with FC2 is unlikely."

And I predict the rise of disposable OR directional EMP charges that will blow those UAVs off the skies. Pilotasso: what better things ? :-) Mankind can't divert to better things mate. I'm pretty sure the money will be used to create anti-UAV measures, which will trigger creation of anti-anti-UAV measures and so on ad infinitum. We will never learn.

Sorry, I fell sick yesterday and was in no mood to even look at the computer, let alone get that info. I'll be back.

Am I the only one who sees in this aircraft direct inspiration for creating Ellen Ripleys alien daughter in Alien:Resurrection ? :-)

Thanx for your help. I will try to collect requested data tonight.

I've checked it out yesterday night, when this problem appeared again. There was an insignificant amount of network traffic present, from which I couldn't confirm or deny that BS is really downloading anything. Is there some tool that logs what amount of data is downloaded to which application ? What is actually downloaded over network ? MIZ files ? Or complete packages with sounds, textures and so on, ZIPped ? How does the mission download actually work ? Is there a chance for ED to add progress bar on the "Loading mission" screen ? Or am I just one bloody unlucky guy in the world that gets this prob ? Generally I have a very stable network connection. I don't understand this problem at all. Restarting BS MP won't help although I was too lazy to restart computer, instead opted for SP. :-)

Will do and come back to report.

Hi, from time to time I keep experiencing this problem: 1, I connect to a server, the "Loading mission" screen comes up 2, it never disappears, the sim simply keeps stuck on that screen (even 5 minutes) until I press Cancel It's hard to say whether the mission actually keeps loading, because there is no freakin' PROGRESS BAR! Any input on this ? :-)

I always thought what's so cool about multimonitor setups that gets people on top... Sorry for that, I know the author has probably invested considerable amount of resources and time into it, but to me it looks like a mess. Why oh why would I settle for a so-so image resembling a broken mirror if I can have it all at once on one screen ? No mess, no confusion, no repeating or wrongly scaled parts of the original render... Unless there's some kind of 1 (read ONE) projector, that gets the image at least hemispherical, I consider these setups a hindrance to proper immersion rather than the opposite.

Hmmm, that's an opinion of virtual or RL pilot ? Or both ? Because as I see it, if my left engine dies and right engine is coughing because of a well-placed bullet, with AA enemies scattered somewhere around me, my survival instinct tells me to eject. When I do it, I might land on enemy ground and go MIA or KIA. When I do that on friendly ground, someone might start questioning why did I not try harder to bring that multi-million machine back home. I don't know, maybe if the pilot tells the military court that he followed his survival instincts, they will pardon him and give him a kiss and a new toy, but somehow I'm a bit uneasy about that.

Grimes: OK, np. :-)

Thank you man, however that might sound, I knew this. I hoped that everyone would understand I tried to describe the situation as completely terrible and that's why I used this instance. But thanx for the rest of your reply.

I have a simple question with (probably) a complicated answer. We all experience these moments in BS, when we loose a rotor blade, the heli starts to shake like hell, when we get hit into a vital part of the machine, when there's a lot of damage, but not yet ejection-worthy, but Betty apocalyptically starts screaming "ATAKA, ATAKA!"... The question is, for a RL military pilot, what constitutes the transgression of the point that I like to call "ejection threshold" ? I can only imagine the complexity of the answer, but the interesting part for me would be the calculation between the cost of the machine, cost of the pilots life and possible consequences of ejection. I hope I made myself clear enough. :-)

I have to reply to this, as this might probably be a reaction to what I happened to say a few pages back. No one ever said CryEngine is incapable of running BS. Modifications, modifications. With a whole bunch of them, why not ? But the point is this: CryEngine is not MEANT from SCRATCH for simulations. It was meant for FPS. Nice looking, very fluid, feature-filled FPS. Got it ? FPS. Ground fight. Ground units. Short distances (read - not meant for trips from ADLER to NOVOROSSIJSK with all the shiny grass and trees swept by the wind...). Nice physics. Realistic looking hut falling onto a realistic looking Korean soldier. I don't see why you would mention "elitism"... Why I certainly can't say there are no pilots who frown upon FPS games (I certainly don't, thus my previous vivid description of a normal Crysis experience), don't just assume that whoever likes simming, absolutely dislikes FPS. When I start up BF2, I feel like shooting the other guy with a shotgun. When I start up BS, I feel like shooting that damn ZU-23 Emplacement with a Vikhr, while trying to not lose some mechanical parts of my Shark. :-) And I equally like both experiences. But in this hardware-limited world we have to be reasonably realistic in our expectations. CryEngine, where it is NOW, is incapable of simulating BS - no joke there, no elitism there - it's a fact. Too much attention to smaller scale makes it a HOG when it comes to big scale. That's not looking down on other games, that's just where things are at the moment.

Eh... next time I have 96 core machine with 48GB of RAM on my hand I'll ask ED to use CryEngine3 for their next DCS entry... But I fear that would still cover only like 10x10 miles of space, so the battlefield might become a bit "hot", resembling BF2 footage or so. :-) Come on, wake up from that bad dream.

Have you tried running this with DEP on or off respectively? Also I found it useful to check AFFINITY as well. Some games on some machines refuse to run properly if they are given more cores than 1.

Ok guys the deal is like this: 1, playing this at work - no envy please for reasons that follow... :-) 2, the machine is a bloody 2004 model that CAN'T be upgraded for workflow reasons, that gives me 2 XEON dual cores @2.8GHz, 2GB RAM and Quadro FX500 - works great at 1024x768 3, game works fine up until the moment I hit some clouds and similar volumetric stuff, then the FPS drops to an abyss and I can go shopping in between the frames... Q: Is there a way to get rid of all annoying (at least on this machine) volumetrics ?

That's probably why Afghanistan exports like 90 % of all opium in the world, despite the presence of multi-billion dollar technologies, Reapers in the sky and constant military action. And despite the so-called US war on drugs... And there's only one reason for all that - someone likes it this way.

Ha, now this explains it all!!! I was ever so wondering how blind the M109s are in Confrontation 8x8 :-))))