zaGURUinzaSKY Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 are soldiers static objects or we will see them running and walking? Robbie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenies Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 These vehicle pictures are great. I really want to ... blow them up! :D But, I am afraid of how the much improved level of detail on these vehicles will affect my FPS. When you are flying the Ka-50 you will perhaps not need that many FPS, since the speed you are flying at is much less than, say, when you're flying the Su-27 or F-15C, but still, I'm curious as to how the flying experience will be for me. I still can't fly with all graphic settings set to max the way the sim is today, so... Well, a decreased FPS count won't keep me from buying BS. I will just turn the graphics even lower, and wish for a new computer and graphics card :) Looking forward to ED releasing info about how BS 1.2 will affect FPS. I want to get away, I wanna fly away. Yeah, yeah, yeah! - Lenny Kravitz - Fly Away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Instigator Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Those are some awsome screens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwingKid Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Damn, you all are really inpatient, or is it due to sand clogging your boxes? Define "inpatient." How many years of waiting, and seeing other*, (IMHO) less-critically-required 3D models worked on instead, would you call, "patient?" *not speaking here of Linebacker -SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALDEGA Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Let's go back to the Flanker 1 graphics engine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Let's go back to the Flanker 1 graphics engine. As long as we get the directional thruster packs on the Tor back. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
23rd_SATAN Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 great, but why not fix what was already there instead of adding new stuff no one was asking for? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Scythe Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Cause new stuff sells more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britgliderpilot Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 These vehicle pictures are great. I really want to ... blow them up! :D But, I am afraid of how the much improved level of detail on these vehicles will affect my FPS. When you are flying the Ka-50 you will perhaps not need that many FPS, since the speed you are flying at is much less than, say, when you're flying the Su-27 or F-15C, but still, I'm curious as to how the flying experience will be for me. I still can't fly with all graphic settings set to max the way the sim is today, so... Well, a decreased FPS count won't keep me from buying BS. I will just turn the graphics even lower, and wish for a new computer and graphics card :) Looking forward to ED releasing info about how BS 1.2 will affect FPS. The three magic letters you're looking for are LOD ;) Don't draw all polygons until you're within a certain distance of the object - of course, this means you'll have to moderate your flying to stay outside that range . . . . It's kind of ironic considering that if you're close enough to the object to see all that detail, you're WAAAAYY inside the threat zone and are probably about to die. But anyway :p http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shepski Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 They look great zoomed in on the Shkval. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwingKid Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Cause new stuff sells more. Unless it's Falcon AF.. Doo-ho-ho-ho! ;) -SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witchking Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 It's kind of ironic considering that if you're close enough to the object to see all that detail, you're WAAAAYY inside the threat zone and are probably about to die. But anyway :p lol! well said.. :p WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro | |A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug97 Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I second the guy that said these models rival Battlefield 2! I also second the guy that said we'll all need new computers ... ... but that's not a criticism! AMD and Intel's flagrant flouting of Moore's Law shouldn't be allowed to hold humanity back. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwingKid Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 LOL I guess they are for psicological efects for low flying aircraft. Even an average AG guided missile has standoff range against it. I dunno what we were thinking when we aquired 30 of them. Im almost sure that at least half have been cannibalized by now or rotting somewhere. We could use those missiles on the F-16's. From curiosity: Why would the same missiles be useful on an F-16, but "almost useless" on Chaparral? -SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 The Chaparral uses an old AIM-9 model (either the -B or -E I forget which) which cannot engage head-on. They are very usefull to piss off a pilot and make him come back and strafe the idiot that fired it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witchking Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 The Chaparral uses an old AIM-9 model (either the -B or -E I forget which) which cannot engage head-on. They are very usefull to piss off a pilot and make him come back and strafe the idiot that fired it. lmao :cool: :icon_supe ...that is sooooooooooo true....lol! :D holy shit....that was good... :p WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro | |A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 The Chaparral uses an old AIM-9 model (either the -B or -E I forget which) which cannot engage head-on. They are very usefull to piss off a pilot and make him come back and strafe the idiot that fired it. ... Until you slap some Ms or J's in there. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Wags Posted March 22, 2006 Author ED Team Share Posted March 22, 2006 The Chaparral uses an old AIM-9 model (either the -B or -E I forget which) which cannot engage head-on. They are very usefull to piss off a pilot and make him come back and strafe the idiot that fired it. That's not really true. The MIM-72G is fitted with the AN/DAW-2 which is based on the FIM-92 Stinger. This provides all aspect capability and improved resistance to countermeasures. This was retrofitted to all Chaparral missiles during the late 1980s. New missiles where produced between 1990 and 1991. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/chaparal.htm Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/wagmatt Twitch: wagmatt System: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3729544#post3729544 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 That would explain why Taiwan added them to their LaFayette frigates - I never understood why they did add such an outdated SAM to a state of the art frigate. So ... the pilot gets pissed off and ... tail between his legs go home. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBS17 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 One thing is sure, there will never be a Falcon 5.0 I wouldn't be so sure, it might not be F5 but there is something in the works. http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=140;t=003180 [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKungFu Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 yea allied force 2 or something with dx9 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts