DCS A-10C Screen Shots - 16 Aug 2010

[TKMR]

I concur I feel opengl is far more 3-D'ish than DX. At least I see distance more easily in opengl then DX.

 

Not too mention it's lightyears ahead of DX. PLUS it's an open standard. :D

[Krippz]

Its looking great! Mega props for whoever is making the Nevada terrain!

Oh wait.....:lol:

 

 

Your doing a hell of a job! Keep up the good work:thumbup:

[topdog]

Ok.. digression time.. though for the record I didn't bring OpenGL into this discussion :p

 

I used to be a GL fanboy. Actually, I still adore the core design it delivered in the simple application of light and colour to objects down in the basics, it just screams genius when it begins to sink in how it all works when you're learning it.

 

However, I feel in the availability and consumerism sense, it's fallen behind DirectX (as you could expect with MS force-feeding it constantly), so it doesn't get as much love from the driver writers, and the support for extensions can be very hit and miss whereas you tend to get a more rounded deal from attaining a level of DX compatibility.

 

There's still many projects where I'd choose GL - science/research and business purposes it's ideal for, education too, just not in games and it's been that way for me since Quake3 Arena, after this is no longer had the edge (or that may have had more to do with the likes of Carmack receding from the scene to make mobile games and spaceships).

 

DX now brings a heck of a lot to the table, and makes them accessible without having to be the best of the best gurus of 3D. The only thing that still cheeses me off is its dependency on C++, I'd like to see it properly come of age in the 'managed' code languages instead of the hacks for them that are produced.

 

I'm sure that given enough time and effort, both APIs are capable of truly awe-inspiring results, but DX delivers more accessible 'out of the box' stuff that GL makes you work real hard for - at least for the time being, and all in my humble opinion.

 

If anyone feels they could show me advances in OpenGL they think would blow me away, I'd gladly welcome them in my private message inbox; perhaps I'm just behind the times on the GL front?

[Kegetys]

Interesting, D3D11 should have lower call overhead which means less of a batching issue that you suffer with with D3D9... In practice meaning you should be able to have a larger number of trees/buildings/etc drawn without the FPS taking a nose dive like you get in D3D9 due to CPU overhead. Interesting to see if this will be so in practice, I haven't seen any games "test" this yet as all DX11 things tend to focus on tesselation which is kindof the opposite (more model detal with same amount of batches)

[lce]

Amazing screens mr. Warner. :thumbup:

[RipKirby]

Amazing screens mr. Warner. :thumbup:

 

That's Mr. Wagner to you :smartass:

[SlapStik]

Wow, I think I may have wet myself.....

[Postal2]

LOLLL Oh, I see a lot of thought ... A10C

 

[Novum]

Yeah. So why are you flying anywhere near them, oh ye of little faith? ;)

 

 

I like low level... what can i say :D

[sobek]

Amazing screens mr. Warner. :thumbup:

 

Just because it's eye candy doesn't automatically mean Warner have their hands in it ;)

[kato217]

That A-10 is looking awesome - thanks for the update!

[VIKBELL]

Very nice, hope to see many more.

[CAT_101st]

And to think it is not 100% It will get better.

[Deigs]

Thanks Wags for the images, they look fantastic.

 

Are these images ones you took on your system (in your sig)?

[Mugenjin]

I just came

 

 

;D

[71st_Mastiff]

its too bad there not getting the full realism extreme, with the track ir; if they can afford those TM hotas's they can afford track ir 4 at least, and give them head sets so they can communicate with team speak.

and provide an ATC.

 

LOLLL Oh, I see a lot of thought ... A10C

 

[RipKirby]

That stick is a helluva lot better than the X52 - I own both. The 52 scores better in the number of buttons department, though, but is awfully inferior in precision.

 

I am 100% sure these guys are competent enough to choose what sticks to use. I would say to seperate the throttle with the attached umbraco :)

[Krippz]

its too bad there not getting the full realism extreme, with the track ir; if they can afford those TM hotas's they can afford track ir 4 at least, and give them head sets so they can communicate with team speak.

and provide an ATC.

 

Well they are using the DTS to assist with conversion to the A-10C so I don't think they care about immersion just learning the new systems in the A-10C's cockpit. And those TM HOTAS's are $30.00 on amazon.com btw (we are in a recession you know ;)).

[RipKirby]

And they don't need to invest in trackIR, maybe they are doing it for free: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=56837 ;)

 

Also, who says they aren't under ATC? Nothing in the pictures suggests otherwise.

[Kaiza]

its too bad there not getting the full realism extreme, with the track ir; if they can afford those TM hotas's they can afford track ir 4 at least, and give them head sets so they can communicate with team speak.

and provide an ATC.

 

"Full realism extreme" as you call it, is not the purpose of these desktops. These are procedural trainers not flight simulators. They are being used so that an instructor can teach specific avionics and procedures to a bunch of students at a time. Its not for teaching how to fly the aircraft or how to operate under ATC. That is what a flight simulator/the real thing is for.

 

If you added those things it would actually be counter productive as systems that are close to the real deal, but not quite right teach bad habits.

 

EDIT: sorry didnt see Evontroys post, but he is quite right.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Kaiza

[BlueRidgeDx]

Just as an FYI, the studs in that picture are all EWO's undergoing JSUNT at Randolph AFB. Not pilots undergoing A-10C conversion.

 

EDIT: Without knowing when the pic was taken, I think it's also possible that these guys could be the "beta" class that went through RPA training before they stood up the dedicated RPA training squadron this spring (558th FTS).

Edited August 18, 2010 by BlueRidgeDx

[GGTharos]

These guys already get full realism extreme ... they fly the real deal.

 

PS: Navigator training? So my guess is they are learning to use the CDU or something of the sort?

[Krippz]

Would not have figured that they were EWO's undergoing navigation training. Thanks for the insight.

[BlueRidgeDx]

PS: Navigator training? So my guess is they are learning to use the CDU or something of the sort?

 

Not sure. I know a guy who went through pipeline at the 562nd FTS, and he recognizes the room the picture was taken in, and said that the RPA (RPV/UAV/UAS/this week's acronym) guys are in there learning to fly using the HUD as the sole reference.

 

But I don't know when the pic was taken, and the patches the guys are wearing are from the 563rd FTS, who trains EWO's.

 

This leads me to believe that the pic might be of the first "unofficial" official class that "beta" tested the program before the new dedicated RPA training squadron, the 558th FTS, was stood up. (Note the pics of the preds/reapers on the wall.)

 

Anyway, sorry for the threadjack. The screenshots look great, and I look forward to putting the Hog through its paces.

[GGTharos]

No problem, this was good info. Thanks :)