Leaderboard

Am I the only one, who dislikes the new electric power lines from BS2, A10C and World? I think, that power lines in BS1 were more real, because they were almost invisible, as in RL! Please, redo them to the BS1 look :helpsmilie: Example:

Disregard - will re-post tomorrow when I can make things clearer.

Also it wasnt the optionsdata.lua file causing issues. It was the path to particle effects in the graphics.cfg

All taildraggres have the CG aft of the main gear, that's a given. But I agree that the effect is worse with the tailwheel unlocked—and I don't mean that's simply because the tailwheel isn't helping to provide some directional control. I think there's some software effect related to the tailwheel that is exacerbating the problem, but a bug report has been filed by one of the devs to investigate the issue. So we just need to be patient and let the artistry evolve.

Would be nice to have following conditions available: Part of coalition inside moving zone Part of coalition outside moving zone And when you are on top of it :D, maybe also for groups. Currently we can only check units inside a moving zone.

Agreed. It's neat that the BMS team has dusted off falcon to make it work with win 7, they've done great work. A direct comparison between the two sims is really one sided though... DCS, you've got it kid, I don't know what it is but you've got it :idiot:

Penso invece che quando avrà modo di leggere le varie novità ed aggiornarsi sul forum sarà una bellissima sorpresa per lui :). Non è esattamente come nella sua idea ma non ci siamo mica tanto lontani!

The guys running the show over here seem to have a grand master plan that seems to be working. Just because Wags mentions that there is a possibility not ALL planes will have A-10C level accuracy, many will (and many may not). I'm pulling this out of my butt here, but lets say 1 in ever 4 airframes that gets released is an A10C equal in terms of accuracy. But if we want a Longbow, or an F-15E or even Superbug, then attaining that level of classified information may be impossible. I like the choice, of course highest fidelity is ideal, but I can see and be entertained by varying levels of fidelity. Ultimately it will be within multiplayer parameters to govern what airframes are mixed with what. Of course I will be a bit more cautious buying from third party developers vs ED directly (wait for reviews, youtube gameplay references etc). This is most definitely not a bad thing, more choices is never bad thing in a sandbox.

Me too, just not to prove anything ;) But for DCS a F-18 would be better. Naval ops would make the "small" Caucasus theater a little larger.

My point is on F4 concept alone its history and roots, developed with accurate real life input. Please watch It will always be the grandad of sims no matter what, fancy pixels and all ;)

Hi no offence Teapot, But Falcon 4.0 concept a combat study sim will always be la crème de la crème in combat sims its history alone has more weight than any other sim read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0 I went out and purchased it 14 years ago and still lives! I also still have it...check here http://i1171.photobucket.com/albums/r543/picturebucket7/IMAG0009.jpg amongst some other sims....mmm...nice.... :smartass::joystick::smartass: Its design roots is imbedded with real life Air Force input read these links: http://www.combatsim.com/archive/htm/htm_arc1/bonanni1.htm http://vko.va.ngb.army.mil/VirginiaGuard/leaders/bonannibio.html It has a following of over 4000 members it would be wise for DCS to learn from the F4 concepts as we are talking about a "Combat Sim" and the old faithful F4 still has much to say in 2012 and future of combat sims. http://www.simhq.com/_air14/air_507a.html Peoples opinions of F4 is just that your opinions this is not a rant or swipe or attack on you or anyone or thing just saying and stating the facts my friend F4 is here for the long haul :thumbup:

Hi, with all that new modules, that are already released (Ka-50, A-10C, P-51) and announced (MiG-21, IRIS Projects, EDs first fixed wing fighter, FC3) the airspace in DCS is growing to a good and real level. If it possible, to fly with 40-50 clients in the future, we need controller - like in real life - which control and lead the airspace. We will need an ATC, who coordinate the airspace around the airbase, including take off, approaches and taxi/ ramp. On the other hand, we absolutely need GCI controllers. Now, we have an AWACS and with the "new" function, to set up the pattern of the AWACS to the real one, we have good conditions that the AWACS can even work on a turn. But the AI as GCI is not really good, not flexible and the important: in real life, the GCI give the commands to the pilots, depending on mission task or threat level. So, we need an DCS module for controlling the airspace and missions as ATC/ GCI! This module have to be just a desktop with radar screen and all the other tools, controllers have - like a radio and datalink. With an external tool like TARS, the controller could work like in real and contact pilots on different frequencies. Without TARS, the controller have to use radio commands and use that, to give orders to pilots on different frequencies. If the aircraft has a datalink which works with the ground based station (like Link16), the controller give commands via datalink to the pilot. The mission builder should choose, which radars can be used. Only airbase radars (with different ranges), SAM radars (tracking radar, search radar), early warning radars, ship radars or AWACS (range and picture depending on altitude and terrain). The mission builder could mix them. The controller itself, could choose between air picture for doing GCI work, a real-time-strategy view (bird's eye view) to control the airbase and its airspace (~ 10nm, scale able) and a in-game view from the towers position, to check and control approaches at the airbase. The controller should set bullseye via coords, use NCTR to make an EID at longe range, measure dynamic range between two aircrafts and so on. ATC Tool by Zillion (vJabog32) for FC 1.12 (without B/E function via coordinates) - our squadrons favourite tool for that work. Sadly, it isn't updated for FC2/ DCS. The other program LoATC, isn't that good, IMO. kind regards, Fire

LoL Dang it, Tea, now I have that image in my head. :D Seriously, I would love it if A2A migrate their stuff to DCS World. It is such a shame seeing those neutered warbirds in FSX. C'mon A2A there are tons of moolah to be made here now.

I had the same issue as fjacobsen and it is frustrating (affecting all 32 bit OS users? not sure - hasn't been that much fuss) even if beta access is actually a bonus free gift! I decided it was time to upgrade from XP to win 7 64 bit. I'd never had a compelling reason to do it before but I found a good offer in the UK where I could buy an OEM version of W7 Professional under a Software for Students scheme. I'm not a student but my kids qualify and microsoft are happy for home PC builders/tinkerers to use their OEM product. I did the research and spent time backing up. The install went well - Win 7 makes it's own backup called windows.old which includes Docs and Settings, Program Files and Windows from your old OS. It's been a very positive experience. I'm having to slowly reinstall everything of course, but with a new OS that's not so bad. I can fly DCS World also. Win 7 performance is good compared to XP (DCS is exactly the same for me) and I'm pretty much at home after a week. I was worried it'd be similar to Vista, which I've used and don't like. It's not. Anyway, that's what I decided to do. My system is definitely not cutting edge with E8400, 4gb ram and gt440 but runs everything I want acceptably. If I change that horrible GPU I'll be even happier. Cheers!

Maybe I've seen True Lies one to many times, but I freaking LOVE the harrier.

I guess no one knows the answer to my helios questions above. Will wait for Craig the creator to answer. Remember long ago I tackled the dual ring knobs on the Tacan and ILS? Both the Tacan right side frequency and ILS left side frequency knobs are concentric rings. The outer knob for both control a two position rotary switch, while the inner knob controls the frequency via an encoder. While I managed to drill a hole through the rotary switch to connect the inner knob to an encoder below the rotary switch, I thought that was challenging enough. Then yesterday I realized that I've left out the right side knobs on the ILS. Since the volume on the ILS is on the outer knob, it needs to be above the encoder for the inner knob. I found it tough to drill a hole through the potentiometer without breaking its function. Then I came up with the idea of using gears. I realized today that I have an RC hobby shop near by, so I had to go get some gears. The red portion consists of the outer knob that controls the volume on the ILS panel. It rotates a hollow tube on the right side, connected to the right gear via set screw. This tube slides on to the encoder below and rotates freely, not glued. Putting it over the encoder helps to keep it straight. A bit of WD40 helps grease the tube and the encoder so that when I turn the tube it does not rotate the encoder inside. The left gear is also set screwed the another tube that is this time hot glued to a potentiometer below. The gears don't come with any hub. I used another outer knob that has a hole and set screw already in place, then hot glued this spare knob to the gear to act as a hub to hold the tube in place. Repeated this for the other tube. The blue part is the inner knob connected to a thin rod inside the right tube and connects to the encoder below. I drill a hole in the encoder to make the rod sit deeper into the encoder and then hot glue them together. So there you have it. Pot and encoder together. I'm pretty proud that I cracked this in two days. Its fun and rewarding to figure a solution to pit building challanges, and I try to make the solution as simple as possible, though sometimes difficult. I still envy those of you with CNC machines that turn out jaw dropping panels like pitbldr's, epecially combined with PCB boards!

well, so far what we know for sure is that we´ll create a whole series of Harriers for DCS, release date to be announced, sure they will be for FSX/Prepar3D at first, but they´ll be the base for the DCS version. Av-8B Harrier II Plus and the GR7 and GR9 are among the chose ones Best regards Prowler

I might have to move to another country so I can do multiplayer! Because at the moment, everyone is sleeping while I am awake:P

Yeah, an A-10 will not be flying after such catastrophic damage me thinks. A Toad however is another story altogether :D Herewith link to original A-10 story: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm

I think many of the fears expressed lately about DCS are reading too much into too little. Again, based on what little we know, not all products designed for DCS will be allowed to carry the DCS label. It depends on the level of quality. IRIS, for example, expressed interest in being allowed to use the DCS name for one of their aircraft. I forgot which, but it wasn't the F-22. That implies the F-22 will not be allowed to use the DCS name, even if it is a module for DCS World. Is the SU-25T really an exception? Perhaps not. I got the feeling that it was one of the more high-fidelity aircraft out of FC2. I would not be surprised if this plane gets a big overhaul as part of a commercial upgrade, similar in some ways to the Ka-50 going from BS1 to BS2. Ultimately I just don't see how more content can be bad for DCS World. I don't see "survey" quality content replacing EDs work, as they've made it pretty clear that they're interested in doing only the most detailed simulations. I think the best way to understand DCS now is as a combat-oriented counterpart to FSX and X-Plane 10. Third party products may vary in quality, but ultimately ED is most likely going to keep doing what they're doing by developing both the simulation environment and high fidelity aircraft. I welcome the third-party developers. I'm afraid all this nay-saying is going to drive them away, because they will be afraid no one will purchase their content. Is it better to have an IRIS F-22, however realistic they can make it, or absolutely no F-22 at all? I fail to see how not having the option can be a good thing, and fears that F-22s will dominate the skies in multiplayer are just absurd. If they do, it's entirely the community's fault for creating and hosting missions like that. I hope third-party development can fill the gaps that ED, with their limited resources, cannot. If ED never plans to make a Kiowa Warrior, but a third-party developer wants to, they shouldn't be discouraged just because they might not match the quality of A-10C. If it can take a realistic place in the sim and enhance the experience of other pilots flying alongside it, whether or not they're interested in it themselves, then why not?

В остальных ветках тоже размести. А то вдруг эти две никто не просматривает.

Aggressor squadrons use 30 (Alaska only), 32, 42. Among many reasons, because is what is available. They used block 25 and 52 in the past ( might still) But most 25 are getting retired or where retired and block 52 where turn over to the Thunderbirds. Aslo examples of both where sent to ANG and Reserve units. USAF General Electric equipped F-16 units are combat units (except for Eielsons AFB Alaska) while Pratt and Whitney mostly for training. There are combat ANG and Reserve units that use PW, but I can't think of one PW powered F-16 in the USAF station overseas nor combat deployable.

So many people have it wrong in here, F-16 up close and F-15 far away. Not saying the 15 isn't good up close, just that the 16 is better. Read a book about the light fighter mafia and learn a little about the 16 and some things they did to clip its wings some so the 15 would really be put to shame WVR.

Some simple screenshots during formation flying, and refueling over the Black Sea :)

What happens if the warning missing texture texture is missing? Is there a warning missing warning missing texture warning?