Tucano_uy

I tried to log on a RAF server the last weekend. I was kicked out all times and got the "Integrity check failed" message. I have a fresh install of FC2, no mods, didn't touch any file. Only changed the key settings. What could have been the problem? By the way, I'm not a RAF member. It was my first time to try to get online. I've only played LOMAC, BS and FC2 offline and was trying to experience some multiplayer action. Note: My pings are relatively high, between 300 and 600ms in most servers.

about 15 days to South Africa from Kengray UK

AFAIK there's a PDF manual in the FC2 disk, so there's no absolute need to buy the printed manual, however, it's a nice thing to have. I bought from kengray and I'm still waiting to receive the game disk, it should be arriving shortly. Check in Amazon.co.uk before buying, the game was cheaper there than in Kengray (I only found out after ordering!!!)

I was flying the Su33, trying to spot the E-3.

This may be exactly what I need!!! Thanks

Visibility is set to high, AF 16x, AA 8x Multisampling, gamma correction on, on a GeForce 9800GTX+ Thanks for the game tip, but the fact that I'm a poor, unskilled pilot (but getting better :joystick:) doesn't change the fact of the (imho) poor visibility. Please don't shoot down my idea of an intermediate level of help, realism, or you call it whatever name, too early :cry:. Some people may like it and it probably not a hell of a task to implement it. PS: I just did a quick test. I set up a mission with my SU33 15Nm at 3 o'clock to an E3 awacs. I could only start to see it at about 6 miles and spot the shape and identify it at less than 3 miles. I know little about tanks, weapons and camouflage, but I am an air traffic controller in real life and I do know that if fair weather a B707 can be seen and clearly identified a lot further away. By the way, I am at ED's service if there's anything I can help with related to ATC (civilian ICAO).

fair enough. But what I mention happens everywhere, even in open terrain, roads, or with aircraft in the air. As I said it probably depends on AA, AF settings, video options and hardware. I can detect a convoy on a road with the shkval, see that it is maybe at 2 miles and it is impossible to visually acquire it. Next thing... tracers coming my way, chopper down, etc etc. It was mentioned somewhere in other thread that the difficulty to spot units may be related to anti aliasing, in my opinion it would be interesting to exclude units from antialiasing but i doubt it would be technically possible and the results may not be great. The workaround that I suggest is a step between absolute realism (as ggtharos mentioned, appropiate camo. Or maybe even harder to see units in FC, BS than in real life) and using a big spoiler as current labers are. I say again, i would like to see that there is "something" ahead at 3 miles but I don't want to know that there's an enemy fighter coming my way at 45 miles. Just something in between the 2 extremes we have today. Just my 50 cents...

I still have problems to view units from certain distance, both air and ground units, but especially ground units. Probably high anti aliasing values are the culprit here, scenery looks great but units are invisible. I believe that in real life I should at least be able to see that there's a tank at 1,5 miles but in FC or Black Shark I can't. I don't want to use labels, that spoils the game big time. I don't want to have the unit identified or know the distance. A possible solution would be something like an abreviated label. Maybe only a small black or grey dot or indicator that there's a unit, but without revealing the coalition, type and range. That indicator should appear at a distance where in real life it would be assumed that the unit would be visible by most people. Large units/planes/ships, would display the indicator further away and smaller ones only very close to them.

Also, how long will it usually take to deliver (outside UK), and is there any way to follow up the purchase?

Just ordered the BOX version of FC2. Is the manual available for download anywhere? I'd like to start reading it while the game is delivered.

I set gain to 15!!!! It is a little bit better, but not the way I think it should be. I guess a shot in the cockpit should sound like somebody is hitting your car with an iron bar.

Own aircraft damage is specially low. I guess that the shaking and noise heard from inside the cockpit must be really loud in RL when getting hit, no low pass filter or whatever there. What would be the files to modify and how to solve it without affecting the volume and filtering of the other outside sounds? Thks

The obvious way to do it, when you are addressing an international market, is at least to have the option to select the language. You want super realism? then have it in russian. You want to play it reasonably? then have it in english (yes, there are many other languages spoken by people but in the modern world, everybody should at least have a bit of knowledge of english). It don't believe it is realistic that a pilot can't understand at all what the aircraft and the wingmen are telling him. I'd rather don't install any mod at all, and i'd like to see the option to have betty and comms in english (as it was before) in the next patch

Where can one read about tactics? There are good tips spread on this forums, but if anyone have links to webpages or manuals, can you please post them? thks

Gripen?

Not sure what you meant. But let's leave it here... I disagree, but you might be right. Please note that at all times it was mentioned that this was not a high priority thing. Keep up the good work!!

Agree. But even DCS being a simulation, it's also a game (I know purists will not like this) and things may be "spiced up" to make it more interesting, so time between failures could be decreased. Also, the mean time between a Ka50 pilot getting to shot at a tank is very long, if it ever happens (please, no political considerations here, not the purpose of the post), and we get to kill tanks, apcs and other helos every single day. What I was saying is that if we know that the system is going to work every time in the simulation, then checking it is useless and people will eventually not do it. The simulation becomes more a game than a simulation. I have no idea how difficult is from the depeloping point of view to implement such minor failures and I definitely would prefer a better AI, ME, dynamic campaign and collidable trees (you missed that last one AlphaOneSix:D). But I suspect that making the laser detector, the fuel or temp needles not work, the chaff dispenser not show 990 and not dispense chaffs shouldn't be that resource intensive and will definitely add to the rigour of a study simulator as DCS is. my 2 cents

Random failures happen IRL only once in maybe thousand hours. I think it was discussed before in some other thread but the failure options in DCS is indeed very limited and usually quite critical (complete loss of one engine or other system), the ones that determine that the flight is a no go if it happens on the ground or a RTB if it happens in flight. I think it would be nice to have some other less critical failures, like engine vibration, or hydraulics pressure drop (not just going down to zero), that all the equipment that is checkeable (laser warning, flare dispenser, extinguisher, etc) would fail sometime (thus checking it on start up would really make sense). With this kind of minor failures, it would be pilot's decision to go/no go or to continue the mission or return to base. I mean, it's quite clear to me that if I have lost one engine and hydraulics, I'll try to come back home. But what if your laser warning failed, or your fuel quantity indicator is not working... ? That opens a new perspective as us as pilots will decide how bad it is and if we go or not. In short, if there is a switch, button, lever, light, chime, display or something to check that a system works or not, then that system should fail sometime. Otherwise it's just a cosmetical addition. Again, failures happen once every thousend hours, as somebody said above, I wouldn't like to have a system failure every second flight.

Interesting. I never thought about that, but it sounds reasonable. Are you 100% sure about this?

Stealth tecnology has gone far...

:thumbup: Thanks ED. That's the professional way to tackle a problem. Fixing it quickly.

Agree 100%, and an official word from ED would be great. Is it going to be fixed? soon? Shall we wait to download and patch?

Please guys at ED... This patch was awaited for too long, get this :pain: fixed on 1.0.1a soon.

Humm. Understood, but it shouldn't be that way. If my cars "betty" stop bitching as soon as I fasten my seat belt:D, I'm sure Kamov could have linked the switch/pitot heat system to the ekran to avoid a non relevant warning (if the system is already on).:smartass:

Not sure if it is a bug or this is the way it is intended to be. Sometimes I get the "Watch ekran" message and "Turn on rotor anti ice" on the ekran screen, even if I have all the anti ice switches ON. I have also seen that the anti ice test lights on the overhead panel doesn't work. Thanks