thisisentchris87

Lio you could try reducing the Resolution Of cockpit display to 512 every frame, if you have it higher.

So we have two types of Mavericks, Imagining Infrared and Electro-Optical. I mostly use the infrared type, but never understood the difference. So what is the difference between the two types of seekers and what advantages do they have over the other? The manual doesn't seem to explain this.

My preferred settings: Textures High, Scenes Medium, Civilian Traffic Medium, Water Low, Visible Range Medium, Heat Blur OFF, Shadows Low, Resolution 1366x768, Aspect Ratio 1.778645833333(infinite result, goofy math), 1 monitor, Resolution Of cockpit displays 512 every frame, MSAA off, Full screen, HDR and TSSAA off. Mirrors are off. These are the settings I run on my Core 2 Duo, Nvidia 9800M GS laptop and get decent FPS for a beta game, about 20 FPS on the forward view and the A-10C still looks great. Your performance should be better. You could try ticking off HDR, you may be able to pull ahead with out using my settings.

It is working for me, I have the broken switch mapped on the keyboard. It doesn't flip or make a noise, but I have gotten the autopilot to work from the ramp.

What I like to do is jump in and just start one system and start seeing what it does when I press something. I'll be doing this with the EGI and CDU system, I don't need to fly or anything, just start the APU and start button mashing. That's the best way to learning The A-10C (or any complex simulator) in my opinion, read the manual and if something looks cool jump in and try it. Don't try reading a whole chapter and trying everything at once. Look for stuff that's useful or cool in the chapter. The manual is still the place to go to if something is still a little confusing when your playing with it in the cockpit, like the HUD, which has a lot of information that's abbreviated or symbolic. When it comes to arcronyms, don't try just memorizing them. Try looking at the acronym and its meaning, eventually you should notice that its fairly common sense. Like with the CDU, F is Fail, V is Valid, P is Pass. Knowing what the system does helps to, the acronym has to relate to the subject at hand. Like with the CDU and its system statuses. Just make sure to master the SOI and SPI concept, that's by far the most confusing part!!!! Personally I find the A-10C far easier than the Ka-50, The menus and systems are very straight forward and intuitive. I fired off my first 3 mavericks yesterday, it took me a few minutes to figure out (although I do have some steps in front of me). I havn't read the manual much and I already have a good grip on most of the avionics (some things I haven't tried yet), which shows how refined the A-10C is. I think the A-10Cs avionics are too easy, although I'm sure I'll be screaming at some point! :P :joystick:

Update DirectX and your Video Card drivers. Also, there are reported problems with A-10C and ATI cards. As I use Nvidia I don't pay attention to the reports, so I don't have all the details. Stick to it, its just a beta.

I've had a few AI controlled A-10s fire their GAU at some tanks and the dust plume is IMMENSE! It creates mad amounts of lag and looks completely absurd. Now I haven't seen what you've seen Ray, but adding more dust than what is the currently present seems out of place. I could be looking at a bug for all I know, this did happen in Georgia.

Yeah move it when I'm DONE WITH IT! I'm going to try purchasing it tomorrow, when I can use my university's internet :music_whistling:. I'm sure ED will appreciate the findings of a mobile gamer, I just hope it isn't completely unplayable on my system. I'll make sure to try the old tricks.

I'm wondering how the FPS is for everyone who is running the beta? Any problems or difficulties? I know that its in the beta stage and unoptimized, but I can't wait any longer. And while I'm at it, how well will my Core 2 Duo 2.1 GHz, 9800M GS 512MB, 4 GB RAM, run it? BS runs flawlessly on it (while BS and WH are different its a starting point).

MUST FIND FUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heh, that reminds me of the time I flew into a mountain because I was reading a manual. :P

I find time compression cheating. I don't mind long hauls. I departed from an airport in an IL-62 (for FS9) somewhere on the west cost or Midwest (I can't remember it was a while ago) and arrived in an airport here in my home state of Florida. I did this in real time and took me 4 hours. It had a full simulation of the navigation system of the IL-62 so I kept busy by playing with the navigation instruments and displays. Then I flew from JFK to an airport in Iceland I think. Took me somewhere around the same time. I love simulators........ :P In these cases a handled the throttle to get me there in a reasonable amount of time while conserving my fuel. Although I left with my tanks full and the IL-62 is able to hold a lot of fuel. But for the A-10C I would agree with the above it depends on the situation.

Almost looked like it was from DCS in a few scenes. As much as I like watching it fly around, I need explosions.

Who says it needs to be done now? In other words it isn't critical? Not even close, I agree, but I'm not talking about gameplay, I'm talking about server scalability and performance. When hosting a game in DCS its very demanding to ask the cpu handle client requests and flight characteristics. So ED is fine with an underdeveloped system? Well you are running quite an impressive "super" computer. :smilewink: I suppose the fact that most of these servers aren't hosted in the US contributes to the ping bias in the server list. I suppose that explains why ED won't bother and it also answers my questions, its treated to much as a novelty. And that supplies a further reason for what's happened Whatever, I've said enough.

How to improve this game. What this game needs, in fact what this series needs, is dedicated server software. I don’t know if this has been mentioned before, but this game needs it. It’s an absurd design to have the hosting server also run as a client, there is so much needless and excess overhead. Perhaps this server scheme is the reason for the small amount of servers I see on DCS: Black Shark. Plus, it could be the reason for the somewhat high pings I consistently see. Now granted I’m connecting over Wi-Fi and DSL internet, but I can play Team Fortress 2 with 32+ players and have very few, if any, connection problems. Not only do I want to see a dedicated server, I would also like to see it available in an unrestricted form. Or if that’s too much to ask perhaps it could be available as an option in the server set up screen, via a drop down menu. For example a use starts the multiplayer component of DCS: Warthog, they go to the server screen, they configure the server and select “dedicated server,” they start the server without the simulator component. The only thing the user would see is some form of limited GUI server management interface that doesn’t require high performance equipment, like the current system uses. However, consider making it unrestricted and separate from the retail software, it would make creating a server a lot more accessible and desirable. There are hundreds of servers for Team Fortress 2 and all run on dedicated servers, granted that’s a larger user base, but it could be because that anyone can download the server software for free and get a server running. I see no reason why ED doesn’t and shouldn’t have a dedicated server scheme. To be blunt I would rather see ED make a dedicated server option than another aircraft. I don’t want an F/A-18 or whatever simulator or even a Scenery Update, I want a dedicated server. :noexpression: It would benefit this community far more than anything. In other news, the smilies here are bizarre. :music_whistling:

Release this game, NAO!!!!!!! I can't wait any longer! I can't get any more fun out of my current games!!!! I can't think of anything else!!!!

Black Shark has been a top-notch game in most areas. The wingman AI has been generally useless, so much so that I generally prefer to fly without them because I end up doing everything myself or they screw something up. In a battle feild type scenario their OK (although one always dies), but missions with specific objectives they end up being clumsy and annoying. Other than the AI I think the multiplayer is the only weak component and that mostly leans on the fact that it lacks a true dedicated server functionality. The few times I've looked in the lobby it had some servers, but they all had high pings. Granted I haven't actually joined a game, but what little I've seen is not impressive. It isn't proper for a server to run any graphically heavy interface. Those 2 things don't detract totally from one the best sims I have every seen. I would like to see a dedicated server more than a new aircraft after the A-10C installment.

Hey I just noticed this Area 51 IS modeled!?!?!?!? Haha I knew it!

Since Nevada is being mapped and various airbases are being done, will one of those bases be Area 51? :music_whistling:

Using this program: http://download.cnet.com/MD5summer/3000-2248_4-10050856.html Check the MD5 sum of your 1.0.2 patch Here is my MD5 sum: fe95f4deb4cc7da10e2ce623192acb7a If they are not matched then your patch is the problem as my NVG works.

Compute Unified Device Architecture or CUDA is a parallel computing architecture developed by NIVIDA and is enabled on most newer cards. Physics caluclations can be offloaded onto the GPU using CUDA, thus you don't need a dedicated physics card (PPU) or CPU, but only if the game supports such a system. This is possible because PhysX is coded and integrated into the CUDA framework. This makes the PPU redundant. If ED were to use CUDA, then you could see physics calculations on the GPU. CUDA is very fast, for example a certain neural network operation on a core i7 would take about 3 hours and 27 minutes. On a CUDA enabled card that same operation would take 3 minutes and 16 seconds on a Tesla card. a 9800 GT it would take 51 minutes and a GTS 240 would take 24 minutes. Those cards are slower because of single presicion calculations, the Tesla can perform double precision. Physics probably aren't as complicated as a neural network, so imagine how fast those calculations can be made. CUDA is this fast becuase it takes advantage of the GPU's parallel nature and its not very difficult to program for, it uses C (with NVIDIA extensions and certain restrictions) and there are other bindings as well. While it would be crazy to ask ED to do it for the A-10C on such short notice, it is still possible using PhysX middle-ware. Perhaps they can consider it in the future. If ED is interested in this, the SDK is free, http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx.html

I made a steam group and it has 27 members so far, its called Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark. I named it that becuase when you search for steam groups relating to a game, that's what steam puts into search. The shortcomings of the forum are precisely the reason why I made it. Its not a replacement for the steam forums, but it helps.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer First post in this part of the forum, so I don't know how you handle sources. This new ASBM sounds incredibly formidable. I'd like to see how it handles newer generation defense systems. SIMULATE IT NAO!!!! :joystick:

Thanks, Will you be releasing an update to 1.0.2 to address the issues that are being reported? I ask because the updated sound engine sounds interesting. Ever since I've owned BS, I get this awful flanging effect when I switch views multiple times. I've updated my sound card to fix this, but to no avail.