ALDEGA

The Ka-50's laser warning system was taking a nap? ...

Torrent distribution works quite well for initial distribution (over 100 seeders right now).

Patch torrent is going quite fast now ... ;)

Fixed the problem. I had installed 1.1.0.9 some time ago to compare it to 1.1.1.0. The registry contained a reference to the 1.1.0.9 path @ "HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\DCS A-10C_is1\Inno Setup: App Path" Changed it to the 1.1.1.0 path and all is well. Patches rule :D

...?

But .. it is :(

It's programmed in the CBU-97 itself (on the ground), independently of the aircraft? DSMS HOF setting is for IFFCC purposes?

Much sooner than me then, my torrent client shows the infinty symbol for ETA :D

Someone ignored the "do not photograph" sign :D

Did you try to update the video driver anyway? Doesn't take much time to test :)

Maybe the FARP should be implement as a template. If we had individual static objects for the landing pad (which the AI could also use) then we could create a FARP as a template and everything would be aligned to the slope. Alignment with slope already works for regular units (not for the current FARP object though). The template feature allows individual objects to be moved after creating a template instance, so it would allow for easisly customizing the FARP ... By the way, some roads in DCS are still not aligned with slopes causing some weird visuals ... (just a detail)

Indeed, it looks too artificial and permanent. I like the FARP in Nate's picture, seems more natural. FARPS are built ad hoc so ...

Might have been better to create a separate thread. Your screenshot indicates that the (Nvidia) video driver has crashed while the OP's crash is related to DCS directly. Perhaps it can be fixed by installing the latest Nvidia driver.

Core parking is handled by the operating system and can also be used in Windows 7. Applications are not programmed to interact with this feature. Moreover, there is a performance feature in Intel's i7 CPU's that automatically increases the clock speed when there is a high load. The amount of clock frequency increase depends on the number of loaded cores. In case of Intel i7 860: Default clock for four cores: 2.8Ghz Max clock for 4 cores "loaded": 2.93Ghz Max clock for 2 cores "loaded": 3.33Ghz Max clock for 1 core "loaded": 3.46Ghz This feature can help increase performance of applications (including DCS) that don't use all cores without requiring permanent manual overclock of all cores.

Core parking can also be configured in Windows 7 (several parameters exist), not just Windows Server 2008 R2 (="Windows 7 server"). I have it enabled on my Windows 7 desktop system (Intel Core i7 860). Since DCS only uses two cores and nothing else is happening on my system, I don't see how it would negatively affect performance. The two cores are not fully used either. GPU may be the bottleneck ... :( I think stutters are often due to data being loaded from disk. The longer DCS is running (and the more terrain and objects you've "viewed"), the less stutters you should experience as data is cached in RAM, if you have sufficient RAM that is ...

For DCS:BS2 the cockpit model was converted to another format (used by new models in DCS). Since DCS-WH doesn't have a pilot body either, I think the pilot body feature has been permanently removed. The pilot body partially blocked the view to the controls so you'd have to turn it off anyway. ?

Why? The USAF has aircraft than can handle the SEAD role. A-10C does the CAS role fine. With the USAF's budget they don't need a single aircraft that does every role.

Hmm, I have the same issue here when editing your mission file. Even if I add another flight and set it to player, it won't use the correct loadout. Not even fixable through "prepare mission" ... Could it be due to usage of custom loadouts? Looks like this is the case.

Dear Santa ...

Even for a moving stick, the X52's stick is relatively bad. I much prefer the MS Sidewinder Feedback Pro 2's stick. It has very few buttons though so It's not useful for DCS ... :( The Thrustmaster Warthog is on my wish list, rather than the Saitek X65. Waiting to see what the next flyable will be before I make the investment.

The X65 doesn't have a two stage trigger ... the X52 did however, so you can map PAC and cannon fire to the first and second stage of the trigger on it.

Might as well link the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Belgian_MiG-23_crash ...

I expected nothing less GiGi :D

DES is ancient ... Besides you're mentioning brute force cracking. People who hack a system would use a weakness in a system, not brute force cracking. Other techniques also exist of course (man in the middle etc) (not specifically related to UAV communication) Edit: at least you're not denying that unencrypted UAV video feeds were intercepted ;)

Encryption (in general IT) is not magical, this has been proven time and time again. Security in software from industry leading companies is often compromised so you can bet military contractors are no better. Even industry standard security protocols like SSL have known weaknesses (you use SSL to do your online banking ...) .Let's be realistic. Practical example: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html UAV video feeds were not encrypted and could be intercepted using minimal investment.