Flyby

my work-around I tried to copy my MiG15 file over to the 1.5 beta, and had a bit of success. I copied it from the DCS world\coremods\aircraft of my main game folder and pasted it to the DCS World coremods\aircraft in the 1.5 folder. It then downloaded the file (1.? gb). When I opened the module manager in 1.5 I saw the MiG there, but the serial number box was blank. When I began to type in the serial number, the whole number appeared. So I tried to take the MiG for a test spin (no pun intended), and it flew just fine. I won't be doing this for every plane in my hangar, but at least I sorted it out, and I may chose another plane to try. Flyby out.

now that I have 1.5 I have a question First, 1.5 is in my c:\Programs folder with it's own launcher. I'll call it launcher-A My standard version 1.2.??/ is in my E:\ drive. Let's call it launcher-B Launcher-A fires up and I see only two planes in my modules section, the TF51 Mustang and the SU25. Fire up Launcher-B and I see all the modules I bought. My question is this. How can I fly the Sabrejet, for example in 1.5? Can I copy my modules to the c:\ location? Thank you for any revelation on this subject. Flyby out

Where is the down-low-and-dirty deep-penetration NOE Strike fighter coming from?:pilotfly: Flyby out

yeah, no need to beat that horse's-corpse any further You know they can't put it on the web if it's not true!:music_whistling: Flyby out

parsing words, he is. Maybe But that E of his looks pretty good, if in a somewhat sterile environment. But how can he have access to data that DCS does not? Maybe DCS sets a higher a bar for "fidleity" than he? Flyby out

a Froogle video of the Aerosoft FA 18 It's being said in the video this FA 18 model is beyond DCS Hornet news starts at 1:07 in. One has to believe. Flyby out

it it can draw them in, they will come Per GGTharos's post, if DCS offered an engine upgrade which could create the visuals that provided the player a deeper sense of immersion, I think even those who don't want to count leaves (but will appreciate the more finely defined details so targets can be more clearly seen as in real life) will not pass on such an upgrade. Else, Flanker would still be a very popular and often played sim. As would Tornado, and Pacific Gold: With a graphics upgrade, these excellent sims would be popular today. It's about which sort of immersion suits a person. Obviously.:joystick: Flyby out

it may not have to be photo-realistic for some, It's doesn't currently have to be at all. But I think some among us appreciate every little forward step made in delivering a more immersive world to fly in. It just adds to the suspension of disbelief. The more immersive a virtual world is, the better. Smooth frame rates of course. I hope DX12 delivers on the increase in efficiency (something like increased draw-call count , I think?). Anyway, Better graphics is a high for me in air simulations. I mostly own combat flight simulations. I always want better graphics in the same way some want pure fidelity in FMs and DMs and systems and subsystems, and great looking cockpits.... It's all closer now. see here: http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/3dmark_api_overhead_test_dx11_vs_dx12_cpu_performance_preview.html Just my opinion on things. To each his own kind of pleasure in this hobby. Flyby out

Blaze, of course that's IL2-Sturmovik. I was simply pointing out that it had been done (in animation as Zabuza says) in that old classic. Zabuza, thank you for pointing out that oxygen flow needs to be managed in the (DCS) Sabre, or the pilot will suffer hypoxia. That feature really trumps the lack of an animated mask on the animated pilot. Yet, for animating a pilot flying at high altitude, I found the lack of the mask to be a curious omission. It's not a game killer, and I'm not really complaining, in the face of the quality of DCS's simulation of the plane itself, and all DCS planes. It just seemed an odd omission of that little thing on an animated pilot. Slightly OT, but I wonder if in real life the mask was seen in the pilot's peripheral vision? No harm, no foul. Just an observation. Flyby out PS that video shows how cool the modeling of the environmental system really is. Nice attention to detail.

sorry to be vague. The simulated pilot of the Sabre seems not to wear an oxygen mask. I just figure I'm missing something in my settings as the reason i don't see the mask simulated.

Where can I find the pilot's oxygen mask for high-alt flying? It seems to have been typical for the plane. See here @1:14: I'm sure I must have missed it in this sim. thanks all,

=Mac=,I thought you were banned!! by the humor police.:P Kuky, you are probably right. Flyby out

and as an example...? Flyby out

this is a tough room! Guess I really should have known technology would not be able to pull it off (so soon). May as well sell that surplus Cray in the basement!:smilewink: Flyby out

that's what I thought 20 years ago! :lol: So it has to be closer than it has been. Anything beats the drab DCS world we have now. Guess it depends on how one wants his immersion served up? Flyby out

Would be great to see something close to this (strike pilot's wet dream): http://www.network54.com/Forum/79537/thread/1420120211/Additional+areal+photo%27s+of+the+new+air+range+in+Mattawan+Michigan. Just imagine if those rich colors could be rendered. Probably take a huge amount of Vram, and at least a 512 bus. Things to dream about for the virtual world of combat pilots. I know. "Keep dreamin, Flyby" Flyby out

when I think strike a/c I'm not so much thinking about close air support for troops. I'm thinking of going in low and deep to strike in an enemy's rear. Bu tmore a/c are welcome to fit all comers, I suppose.:thumbup: Flyby out

howcome no oygen mask on the pilot? Flyby out

Mud movers unite! Why else would DCS invest in the anti-air systems in the game if it did not intend (as God intends) that there be a western strike fighter to compliment the Su25T (just as the Su27 compliments the F15, or the F16 compliments the MiG 29). It's a matter of balance. Not asking for a two-seat implementation like in Strike Eagle or Tornado sims of yore. Come on Wags. Help us out here. Flyby out

Well I hope DCS reworks the code to improve on that. It's building DCS World for a purpose, and I may be mistaken, but I think MMO performance or lack thereof will make or break it. The "electronic battlefield" needs to be more MMO accessible, imo. Flyby out

Frostie, what's the form on the 51st server? Doing anything with the Pony and the Dora on your server? thanks, Flyby out

thanks Joey. This thread seems to be the current state of multiplayer with DCS: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2141204#post2141204 Flyby out

just to add a little fuel to the fire, ACG is watching DCS to see if/when the DCS multiplayer will support it's numbers. We fly IL2_Cliffs of Dover, and typically have 40+ pilots on campaign day, and several waves of AI bombers. With the Pony and the Dora already out, we await further developments (Spit, Tempest, 109k, etc). This is us: http://www.aircombatgroup.co.uk/index.php Flyby out

So, to be clear, if my server (Air Comabt Group or ACG) can support 40 players there should be no issue?

I'm flying Cliffs of Dover with the ACG group. We have our campaign-day missions on which the turn out is often over 40 players online. ACG is interested in eventually flying WW2 campaigns in DCS, but I wonder if it can support our numbers players. Anyone know how many planes DCS world supports? In Cliffs of Dover there can be 40(+) players in addition to several waves of bombers (we fly history-based missions). thanks, Flyby out