winz

The F-10 custom radios work independently from the radio subsystem and don't care about Fq/modulation settings.

When I played the campaign waaay back, this was one of the problems I encountered. Cause was that a wrong flag was set on the radio call trigger. Makes me wonder if it was even tested...

Surreal

He had an engine failure and began to descent the moment his left engine burst into flames. So no, that doesn't count, because that's excatly what I was talking about - only structural/engine damage does affect the AI ability to fight. Imho the whole problem lays in that the AI really supports only the old lock-on/flaming cliffs damage modeling, where engine/structural/ruptured tank were basicaly the only problems you could get. Therefor the AH-64 is easy to shot down, it just takes a few round anywhere. The damage modelling on DCS planes is much more complex. You get more system damage that will cripple you, but you need damage to specifical places to bring you down. Both the Ka-50 and A-10C can generaly take more punishment then the FC planes before going down. The problem is that AI is unaffected by system damage, it doesn't depend on AP to keep the bird flying&fighting, it doesn't depend on the hud, the skhval or any other system. The only time you see AI give up a fight is when is has engine/structural/ruptured tank damage and is trying to limp back to base.

One thing I would like to know - does other than structural/engine damage affect the AI? Can it have i.e. Shkval, weapon system or a AP failure? Because if not - that might be a reason why the AI Ka-50 might feel a little dmg spongy. You cannot cripple it the way it can cripple you.

Afaik the only things protected are the pilot and the driveshaft+gearbox. Everything else is just regular plate. That cannon was designed to penetrate armor on soviet MTB, it should make minced meat from anything flying. In BS1 I've seen the AI heli pilots perform insane 90 degrees nose-up, flying backwards while aiming and shooting. Wouldn't be surprised if they can still pull it of. One thing the AI is not simulating is the workload of flying a single-seat helicopter.

Some shots of mine from Sahara 2012 - the biggest and most considerable meeting of historical military vehicles and military heritage clubs in Slovakia, held annually at Military Technical and Testing Institute, Zahorie, Slovakia. https://picasaweb.google.com/100132621630803890002/Sahara2012

If I would like to babysit someone, then I would be playing Sims, not a high-fidelity simulator.

You get your money worth (especially when on sale, I got my copy of railworks 2 for 5 euros), the stock tracks are good and offer wide variety of sceneries, american mountan passes, urban areas, steam-era europe, and they are very detailed. You get also a good variety of engines - diesel, eletric, steam, freight operation, passengers operations etc... Each track has a free-roam mode and a good amount of scenarios. It has a scenario and track editor. The plugins for 3D Studio Max and Photoshop are free to download from the developers page. So, it's as sanbox as a train sim can be. Ofc, it's a niche market and will get you bored if you are not into trains. You have to stick to rails, but the underlaying motivation why to play it is basically the same as the motivation behind passenger/freight operations in FSX. Operating a multiton machine withing it's operational limits while observing track rules, passenger confort/cargo safety and timetable (and enjoying the furnitue shaking to the subwoofer when you rev up your engine :D).

Noonne is forcing you to buy them, the base game has enough content to keep you entertained for a while. After that you can choose tracks/engines you prefer, that's much better way then releasing an TS iteration each year for full price with new tracks/engines, half of which you have no interest in. And I don't see this approach to be different from DCS World. Would you complain if DCS World had that amount of modules to choose from? I certainly wouldn't.

Train Simulator 2013 in september http://www.railsimulator.com/newsdetail.php?Ref=428 Wohoo :D I kinda like they marketing model - engine update for free, compatibile with previous content. New content optional via DLC or a discounted package.

I think it has more to do with us beeing used on the fact that lead is toxic. And the uranium = radioactivity implication. I cannot see this to be harmfull, if the DU core is sealed inside and doesn't corrode overtime.

+1 Excellent :)

All you need is thrust of the missile engine, engine burn-time, weight and the drag equation for any given speed. You then compose an acceleration equation, run it throug a defined integral and that will yield the theoretical maximal speed the missile can achieve with that engine. Then we can take guesses if missile would survive such speed. Well, in theory, I still havne't got my morning coffee, so I might be totally wrong :D

Operating a maverick in FC2 A-10A vs operating it in DCS-A10C (without TGP) is enough of reason for me to bet on the DCS aircraft.

Not going to happen. Integerating new functionality with old systems (you still want a functional plane in every iteration) would be a huge PITA and would require much unnecessary work.

Isn't TOR radio command guied? If so, there is no reason why such system should be present in the missile. And there is no reason why such system couldn't be present in launching platform. It isn't exactly rocket science...especially in digital age. My wild guess would be that TOR actually does have terrain avoidance capabilities and it's just that EDs implemented only a simple lead-pursuit guiding for all of their missiles.

The orginal arma is 6 years old. Arma 2 is 3 years old, Arma 3 is comming next year and it looks freaking gorgeous, new physics engine, new lighting engine engine, volumetric clouds...and tons of other features. BI is working on and improving their baby the same way ED is improving their. DCS is world is an infantry sim as much as Arma 2 is a flight sim.

Even if, what about the rest? ED added a very simplistic control of few ground units, which is great, but it's far from beeing an Arma killer from a gameplay standpoint. Hell, by that logic I can call CA a Company of Heroes killer.

You have no way how to present development work in a meaningful way, unless it's a model/texture/any other graphical feature. How long would a report 'working on radar implementation continues' keep you interested? Month, two? Certainly not the amount of time it takes to implement the feature. And the only thing the developer can present is this boring statement, maybe with some debug console output, that would be meaningless to you. Most of the stuff developers do just cannot be shown, it's just doesn't produce a graphical output. It's sometimes even difficult to present your work, as developer, to the management. ps. And not that much gets done in a week ;) It would basicaly be the same statement over-again.

AFAIK, in the other topic it was mentioned that the flags are there because you're not in ISL mode and the localizer/glideslope cues are not operational. Not because the HSI is not operational.

:megalol: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Speed again.

lol, no.

Panzers method stops people from editing missions, which I'm not a huge fan of TBH. - new patches might break some missions and there is no guarantee that the mission developer will still be active at that time. Example beeing VERGEEV GROUP campaign for BS1.

Must have for me :) I like the screenshot with flood, interesting scenario.