Fubar512

Really? I could have sworn that they were McDonald's markings? As for me, I'm waiting for the KFC textures, and Wrench is supposedly working on the 335th BK (Burger King) skin. As for Dave, well......

You sir, are clearly barking up the wrong tree

That's better. That statement is at odds with itself, as it is trying to reinforce a fallacy. The larger the object, the lower the density, the less of an impression of speed. Sorry, but that's a fact, not an impression. And it's not simply a case of it "not being an armor sim". It kills immersion when things appear to be out of proportion.

You are not next to those trees, so how can you call that a valid comparison? A T-34 should be just over 8 feet tall.

LOL, are you serious? If that T-34 is the correct-to-scale height, then those trees in the background of the first image must be 150+ feet tall.

IL-2 lends itself to early jet-age scenarios, but it was never meant to simulate anything newer than say, 1960 or so.

One cannot really use that sort of cockpit in this series, unless one wanted to fly the aircraft from the back seat, which would be quite impractical. There is practically no forward vision in that 'pit, as evidenced by the images.

General rule: If you want specific answers, ask specific questions, otherwise, as MigBuster has already stated, you're going to get answers based on guesses. My answer, based on a guess as to what you're asking, is: NO. There are workarounds to help achieve certain capabilities, but the DLL files are what they are, and the executable appears to run a CRC check to ensure that they are in compliance. That means that editing the aforementioned DLL files is not a game for anyone who is not a developer.

Try it under the Autumn or Winter seasons, Ant.

You didn't actually expect this to be about the V-22, did you?

And that was after a cycle of layoffs at that company. The same campus once hosted 3800 users just a year before that refresh. It was a multinational company that, "Didn't make the colors, it just made them brighter" They have since leased that enormous facility out to another firm, and I believe that they're now down to less than 1000 users at their present HQ.

Loss of lock due to ground clutter is definitely modeled. One of the tactics that I use against aircraft equipped with SAHMs and superior IRMs, is to take advantage of ground clutter.

I took part in a mass OS-refresh project where Windows XP was being rolled out on 3000+ workstations at a major business campus, back in the late Winter-Early Spring of 2002. We had a Micro Soft rep onsite, and I recall him predicting that "We'll still be supporting XP well into the next decade". Amazingly, he was right on the money.

Su-27s and MiG-29s would not have been in front line service until late 1984 at the earliest, and Soviet AAMs of the era (early-mid 1980s) were not in the same league as their western counterparts. And that's before we even get to the subject of radars and ECM. If the Soviets had moved one of their Kiev-class carriers into the area, what would it have accomplished? As an ASW platform, it may have been of some use, but its air wing of Yak-38s would have provided target practice, at best. Tu-22m bombers would have been cause for concern, with their ASMs...but moving them to them to front line airbases in Vietnam would have exposed them to attack from sub-launched TLAMs. A more likely scenario was once envisioned by Tom Clancy (in his non-fiction book, "Fighter Wing"), and that is of a counter revolution taking place, where Ho-Chi Min city (Saigon) and the surrounding region secedes from Vietnam, and the US intervenes on behalf of the "new" Saigon government.

Run the MS DirectX package. Yes, the fix is that simple...

CLa = Coefficient of lift by alpha state. Thus, the CLaMachTable represents how Cla is effected by Mach level. This should be left alone, as it doesn't effect a model in level flight. CD0 = Coefficient of drag in level flight at zero lift. CD0MachTable represents how that value is effected by Mach level.

A more demanding (and accurate) flight dynamics model, that applies predetermined global parameters to flight models that lack the appropriate tables and data entries.

Interesting scenario, but keep in mind that: During the late 1970s through the 1980s, China and the US supposedly had an "unofficial" mutual defense agreement in place, an agreement that either would defend the other in case of an attack by the Soviet Union. The PRC and the USSR had fought a limited border war against one another during 1969. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict ) In 1979, China and Vietnam fought a limited war against one another (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War ) I'm sure that they were not exactly the best of friends in 1983. What I am trying to say is that China would have been more likely to attack Vietnam, a Soviet ally, then to have cooperated with either for an attack against the Philippines, a US ally.

Stary had two different TOD sets, with two different tree heights.

All trees on all tiles appear over-sized, and yes, this is a clean install in its own terrain folder. Just fly a ground support mission and view the ground units (targets). You need to reduce tree heights by 70-75% to get them proportionately correct.

I do have one minor issue to report: The trees are waaaaaay out of scale compared to ground objects. They look as if they're 70-80 meters tall!

Sure....do you take Confederate dollars?

Done.

Dave, My condolences to you and your family.

Superb! It is resource intensive, but one must expect that with this series and that level of detail.