DD_Arthur Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 1 hour ago, FlyingShark said: If I'm not mistaken, the F35 doesn't need catapults 'cause it can take off vertically. 57 minutes ago, Lusekofte said: And what planes if not F 35 , it would be the better choice excuse my ignorance You two do understand there are three varieties of F35? The A, B and C?
CanadaOne Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 14 minutes ago, Lusekofte said: It is terrifying sitting there minding your own business and suddenly a 5 kg cat jumping on your lap. Oh man, that's like the ultimate force feedback to simulate a missile hit. "Gott in Himmel!..." Meow! 3
BOO Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 (edited) 37 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said: You two do understand there are three varieties of F35? The A, B and C? I have access to the official RAF document denoting the key differences if it helps... Edited March 11, 2023 by BOO 1 2
Lusekofte Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said: You two do understand there are three varieties of F35? The A, B and C? As I said excuse my ignorance. You did say they built two carriers without catapults And they ordered F 35’s that cannot be used in them? This is beyond my comprehension. So I just wanted a clear answer. 1 hour ago, CanadaOne said: Oh man, that's like the ultimate force feedback to simulate a missile hit. "Gott in Himmel!..." Meow! In my case more like this 1
CanadaOne Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 1 minute ago, Lusekofte said: In my case more like this Luse go boom! ?
BOO Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Lusekofte said: As I said excuse my ignorance. You did say they built two carriers without catapults And they ordered F 35’s that cannot be used in them? This is beyond my comprehension. So I just wanted a clear answer. In my case more like this honestly they can be used - most of the time - just a case of remembering to remove the things that say "remove before flight" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59470276 Fortunately its not like they're expensive of anything...... Edited March 11, 2023 by BOO 1
DD_Arthur Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 Just now, Lusekofte said: This is beyond my comprehension. So I just wanted a clear answer. You must understand, in Britain, if a things worth doing, it’s worth doing as cheaply as possible. At first our new carriers were destined to have the F/A18 and initial construction commenced. Then the F35 program came along and our MoD realised some £500 million could be saved by not having catapults and the associated steam rooms and machinery if we bought the F35B. Construction of our carriers then carried on without catapults. Then the Royal Navy, ecstatic at the prospect of their two new big toys, realised they were being sold a lemon and successfully lobbied for the carriers to have catapults installed and the F35C to go with them. The design specs of our carriers were changed again. However, by this time construction of the ships was so advanced that to put catapults back in would involve cutting the ships in half and then welding another section in. It could be done but would cost an extra £2 billion. It was at this point that the Treasury stepped in and said “No chance”. So we were committed to two big white boxes that could only accommodate the F35B with all the compromises in performance that aircraft has compared to the A and C models. Our politicians and top navy brass then had to endure 18 months of squeaky bum syndrome when the US seriously considered cancelling the F35B altogether. 1 1
BOO Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said: You must understand, in Britain, if a things worth doing, it’s worth doing as cheaply as possible. At first our new carriers were destined to have the F/A18 and initial construction commenced. Then the F35 program came along and our MoD realised some £500 million could be saved by not having catapults and the associated steam rooms and machinery if we bought the F35B. Construction of our carriers then carried on without catapults. Then the Royal Navy, ecstatic at the prospect of their two new big toys, realised they were being sold a lemon and successfully lobbied for the carriers to have catapults installed and the F35C to go with them. The design specs of our carriers were changed again. However, by this time construction of the ships was so advanced that to put catapults back in would involve cutting the ships in half and then welding another section in. It could be done but would cost an extra £2 billion. It was at this point that the Treasury stepped in and said “No chance”. So we were committed to two big white boxes that could only accommodate the F35B with all the compromises in performance that aircraft has compared to the A and C models. Our politicians and top navy brass then had to endure 18 months of squeaky bum syndrome when the US seriously considered cancelling the F35B altogether. Still - its stops the french landing on them so, as comprmises go....not a bad one. 1 5
CanadaOne Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 Tried out the Tomcat in another MT test, low and fast over a city, and as soon as I could tear myself away from the glory of me in the new mirrors, I saw a solid 30% increase in FPS. I'm still not a big fan of the F-14 but it's certainly a gorgeous module.
Guest deleted@83466 Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 Like I suspected, a bad case of Hornet envy VFA-31 “Tomcatters”, lol
BMA_FlyingShark Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 3 hours ago, DD_Arthur said: You two do understand there are three varieties of F35? The A, B and C? I for one do understand yes. And if the Royal Navy doesn't use carriers with catapults, it'll only be logical they chose the version that can take off vertically, they're not stupid either I think. Have a nice day.
DD_fruitbat Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 (edited) 36 minutes ago, FlyingShark said: I for one do understand yes. And if the Royal Navy doesn't use carriers with catapults, it'll only be logical they chose the version that can take off vertically, they're not stupid either I think. Have a nice day. They are stupid. If they weren't, they'd of put catapults on the carriers from the start, so they didn't have to buy an inferior, overly complicated and overall design compromising version of fat amy. Edited March 11, 2023 by DD_fruitbat
MiGCap Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 6 hours ago, BOO said: Ive probably misunderstood you but its using up to 16 P cores for the graphics now (chip dependent) with the rest of the demands spread over others and logic on the E cores (propably misunderstood that too) I think You are right, after reading the MR FAQ section again. Yesterday someone said that the code was only rewritten to utilize a second CPU core initially (can‘t find the source anymore), but in the FAQ section they speak of up to 16 P cores as You said. Sorry, my fault.
DBFlyguy Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 (edited) Oh Fat Amy...... Its hilarious and at the same time pretty sad such a basic function is just now being implemented into fat amy..... I really want to meet the collection of village idiots who green lit the procurement of this thing ? Some more fun facts...no internal fox 2's or internal gun (on the B or C) ? Edited March 11, 2023 by DBFlyguy 1
BMA_FlyingShark Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 28 minutes ago, DD_fruitbat said: If they weren't, they'd of put catapults on the carriers from the start, so they didn't have to buy an inferior, overly complicated and overall design compromising version of fat amy. I don't think I understand. Have a nice day.
Lusekofte Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 Thinking about the additional training. Additionall complexity and moving parts these F 35 must have a much higher service cost accident rate and a very costly education both to pilots and crew. In addition their performance as a fighter must be affected also range and weight
DD_Arthur Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 5 minutes ago, Lusekofte said: Thinking about the additional training. Additionall complexity and moving parts these F 35 must have a much higher service cost accident rate and a very costly education both to pilots and crew. In addition their performance as a fighter must be affected also range and weight Correct.
Lusekofte Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said: Correct. And the reason why it was chosen is worst of all. Not based on what they going to do, only because there is no alternative.
Gambit21 Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Lusekofte said: And the reason why it was chosen is worst of all. Not based on what they going to do, only because there is no alternative. There was an alternative, that’s the point. Build a carrier that can accommodate other types of aircraft as well. Better yet forget the B model and go with the A and Rhino’s and a few Growlers. 4 hours ago, FlyingShark said: I don't think I understand. Have a nice day. Correct Poor planning with both limiting carrier design and aircraft. Rarely is the smartest thing done when it comes to procurement and/retirement of an aircraft. If it was then the F-4G would have stayed around longer, and we’d have a Super Tomcat. What the Israelis are doing with the Viper is smart. Edited March 11, 2023 by Gambit21 1
BOO Posted March 11, 2023 Posted March 11, 2023 6 hours ago, MiGCap said: I think You are right, after reading the MR FAQ section again. Yesterday someone said that the code was only rewritten to utilize a second CPU core initially (can‘t find the source anymore), but in the FAQ section they speak of up to 16 P cores as You said. Sorry, my fault. Rereading my comment it very much sounded like I know what a P core and an E core is. I don’t. I’m as confused as a freshly awakened cow would be about such matters. Just thought I’d mention that as my “probably misunderstood that too” comment was squarely aimed at myself and not your good self. Hope it came across that way.
ST_Catchov Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 10 hours ago, DD_Arthur said: You must understand, in Britain, if a things worth doing, it’s worth doing as cheaply as possible. I've just put a call through to the Aussie PM to cancel the proposed order for British nuclear subs. I thought I heard a squeaky bum.
Guest deleted@83466 Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 How does it actually feel to play one of those “single core” sims, in this day of age? It’s been so long (thanks to your ‘take your pills’ suggestion, in the DD thread), that I’ve almost forgotten what it was like in those bleak, 10 airplane days.
Lusekofte Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 4 hours ago, Gambit21 said: What the Israelis are doing with the Viper is smart My impression is nothing or nobody ever get retired from the force until it or they been declared dead. They are masters of keeping planes in service and as optimised as possible
Guest deleted@83466 Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 Well, we don’t do that here, General Olds.
Jaws2002 Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 What???? Did they release the multithreading patch? Man I'm excited to try it out. How is it running? 1
Gambit21 Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 2 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said: What???? Did they release the multithreading patch? Man I'm excited to try it out. How is it running? Amazing - apparently. I’ll continue my download later. ? 1
Guest deleted@83466 Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 The new patch felt sort of like watching this:
Jaws2002 Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 I'm downloading right now. My game was running pretty decent, but there were slowdowns on some maps, with a lot of stuff going on. I'll have to try it with Afterburner running to compare it with this old video. You can see, there was still action on some cores, but most of them were just sitting there scratching their butts. ?
Jaws2002 Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 There's a lot of stuff coming out now for DCS. It may become the home of most combat flight simmers.
BOO Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 On 3/11/2023 at 12:55 AM, CanadaOne said: I don't have any of his campaigns, but I like his videos. He's got a great attitude. Great campaign maker. Attentive and an eye for detail.
MiGCap Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 12 hours ago, BOO said: Rereading my comment it very much sounded like I know what a P core and an E core is. I don’t. I’m as confused as a freshly awakened cow would be about such matters. Just thought I’d mention that as my “probably misunderstood that too” comment was squarely aimed at myself and not your good self. Hope it came across that way. Of course! I was happy for Your comment as I obviously was misinformed or didn't something understand right. I have the same state of knowledge about P and E cores that You have ... Thank You!
dburne Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 8 hours ago, Jaws2002 said: What???? Did they release the multithreading patch? Man I'm excited to try it out. How is it running? It is pretty dang sweet. 1
Art-J Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 8 hours ago, Jaws2002 said: What???? Did they release the multithreading patch? Man I'm excited to try it out. How is it running? Just remember to take a look at the release FAQ and launch the game using correct exec. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/320618-dcs-multithreading-faq/#comment-5166817 1
CanadaOne Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 10 hours ago, Jaws2002 said: What???? Did they release the multithreading patch? Man I'm excited to try it out. How is it running? Ranges from ? to with the occasional 1 2
Lusekofte Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 22 hours ago, CanadaOne said: still not a big fan of the F-14 but it's certainly a gorgeous module. It is gorgeous but I have a reluctance against two crew ac where one do all the work. It simply too complicated for me. But for flying and landing on carriers it is a favorite of mine. 1 hour ago, CanadaOne said: I thought they were too busy making more 109s? As long as they not flirting with arcade console gamers. They might be on to something. Remember they know all too well what existing customers want, many of them want more 109 I admit. But they also know they have to step up the game. So I will have an open door for them. Does KA 50 get affected a lot by sidewinds? I brushing my skills in it. It just a awesome module but now I figured out the wind might be a huge factor
CanadaOne Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 33 minutes ago, Lusekofte said: Remember they know all too well what existing customers want, many of them want more 109 I admit. But they also know they have to step up the game. Well I only have about ten variants of the 109 in IL2 now, I'd like at least fifteen to twenty. 33 minutes ago, Lusekofte said: Does KA 50 get affected a lot by sidewinds? I brushing my skills in it. It just a awesome module but now I figured out the wind might be a huge factor I never put in enough wind to make things really difficult, it's difficult enough for me already. I mostly use the wind to make the smoke and water look better.
Trooper117 Posted March 12, 2023 Posted March 12, 2023 Well this patch has made me switch my stable install to the beta version... tried MT, it's all good so far! 1 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now