Booger

+1

I remember way before the BS release, the squadron I was with caught wind of the sim and were going nucking futs in anticipation for it. I think with the reviews over at SimHQ & others, it's getting it's fair share of publicity to a big portion of the simming community. With the customer base (not just here in the forums) really satisfied with ED's performance with a helicopter sim, there is no doubt a huge bubble of folks spreading the word about the A-10.

+1, but I have a wife instead...meaning I'll still hear about it years later

Zoom. Maybe not as fun as having a "scope" view as you look out, but I'd like to think that zoom is like having a pair of binos handy.

There's one that's a split screen, actually tri-screen, of the same flight... HUD view Pilot view Ground view Always cool to watch.

No, the one I linked is a mod done by a regular user for TS2 (working on TS3...for a while now). I actually love the idea of changing a freq and talk to whomever is on that particular channel as well. You're totally right. That would of course be ideal. At the same time, I would rather have 10% than 0, which we currently have now. Don't get me wrong, I would flip at the idea of ED adjusting some code so a TS3/mumble "add on" could hook into the game. It's just that as of current, they're really leaving that up to us to do...making something, albeit just a small part, still better than nothing at all.

This is so full of win.

Not a clue about mumble.

Actually, Spinter in this (other) topic has something that will ease the burden of using TS, yet add a bit of realism while using comms in the sim itself. It works for TS2 but he's having some trouble with TS3. Here's a quick run-down of what it does (scroll down to the BS cockpit images) It's not perfect (100% realism) but the freq are manipulated inside the cockpit. A shame folks aren't helping him out with this. We ALL (since the majority uses TS) could benefit from this.

Had you read the rest of my post instead of selective quoting, I hit that point spot-on...and agreed with you. :doh:

UBI won't complain, it's more revenue for them to have a compatible game with the best sim platform available to date. I too think there may be a time where a cut needs to be made (FC from DCS), and who knows if UBI has shook hands with ED as far as ensuring compatibility for future releases. It is, after all, business. Still, I don't think that there will ever come a time when all DCS modules aren't MP capable. There is really no doubt in my mind that ED would patch/upgrade the previous platforms with the latest of their releases. FC? Who cares. They're not held/created to DCS standards. I guess I'm just picky like that.

I honestly can't see them NOT making it MP compatible. I think it's a concern that shouldn't be one. Seriously, if they make BS MP compatible with FC2, why on earth would they not make A10C compatible with BS? FC2 isn't their "baby" relatively speaking, DCS is. I really think that it's safe to assume that all DCS modules being MP compatible with each other is a given.

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?scr=products&end_pos=133&lang=en&page=2 Weapons 1 or 2 should cover it.

...which is the far better option. Program your buttons in your HOTAS software instead of the controls options. It's MUCH easier to manage.

I find it ironic that all the folders contain aircraft that are multi-crew cockpits besides the A-10. I would buy the Tornado because that jet is awesome. I would buy the Viking because I really think I would enjoy flying it & hope DCS would implement it's air-refueling delivery capability. I would by the C-5 simply because it's a monster. Out of them all, I would mostly look forward to the S-3, even though all are guaranteed sales.

In a perfect world, sure. Each side having their own native aircraft would be nice. Unfortunately it's not realistic. Since ED spits what they can at us, it's obviously not up to them what they can or what they can't provide in regards to airframes. This has been stated time and time again in this as well as other related topics. I'm sure ED would love to provide each and every current airframe, but that simply isn't going to happen. Why? Because they'll make the Harrier for us VSTOL mud pushers next, then the F/A-18...then they'll retire fat, rich & happy :D

This pretty much explained why...and a little more detailed info. Thanks for that AOS.

Maybe the Hornet isn't as sleek & sexy like other unnamed aircraft currently in the fleet, but I wouldn't exactly call it ugly. This is ugly.

That's just what I was thinking too. It seems like an older version. It's missing other controls also--laser reset, batt2 & ground DC being the first noticed. Still, the gray looks fantastic!

Well hell. If it's a pick between F-16 and F/A-18 (I know it's not, or is it?), bring on the Hornet!

1. Forgot the EKRAN 2. Rotor brake not engaged :p Pretty cool dude.

Actually, you didn't. No where does it specify DCS:anything in that paragraph.

It will take eleventeen years :thumbup:

Exactly :)

I'll be getting one also. I just hope that the software comes pre-configured with a DCS:A-10C profile. It would really be nice to simply plug & play instead of spending countless hours doing research & configuring (like Saitek) to make it as accurate as possible.