Booger

I too look forward to how things pan out after the addition of EDGE, but based on the provided statement, I can't help but take away from it that it doesn't seem like ED is very receptive of any future implementation of smart scaling at all. I wonder what the response would be if there wasn't a zoom option available at all, yet when the feature was asked for by the community the replied guidance was "lean in closer" or "use reading glasses". It's my guess that the average simmer doesn't have a multi-screen setup, leaving the rest of what they're not directly looking at on their single screen to entertain their peripheral vision. I don't think I'm much of a fan of the idea to have to constantly zoom in and out to see what I should reasonably see with the naked eye. I can only speak for myself, but I don't have a burning desire to constantly see the simulated world through a pair of toilet paper rolls taped to my face, which really is what the response suggests. I think Scrim & Eddie said it best... Further... Exactamundo. If anyone can provide a source to a story regarding a pilot who uses binoculars while dogfighting, I would absolutely love to read about it. Hopefully EDGE will give those folks with smaller monitors a break. If not, I don't think smart scaling (or some improved/equal variant) is an unreasonable request. If it's programmed like how Eddie suggests, I don't understand why it would matter. A "smart scale bubble" will be somewhat of an equalizer. Even though beastly sized screens with cranked up resolution will always have the advantage, smart scaling distance would add some kind of balance where it matters most. In response to labels, I think it's generally a bad idea simply because it feels like cheating, at least to me. If I wasn't watching or someone beat my eyeballs, they deserve to have that advantage as much as I deserve to have the stress from it. If I lose sight, it should be realistically challenging to pick it back up. Movement, colors, glimmer, smoke or even shadow is what should catch my eye, not a streaking black/red/blue dot. Then again, if there was something that made the viewing of other aircraft more realistic, this wouldn't be as much of an attractive option to some as it is now. At this point, I'm just happy for the lack of padlocking (which is by far worse than labels).

Pilotage and dead reckoning vs following a line on a moving map. :thumbup: I guess they ran out of space in the back heh. Yeah, I saw the diagram of the cyclic on each which makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

Indeed. Interesting. I found that the VHF radio is at the front seat seat only. UHF & FM are at the back (pages 5-7 to 5-9). I'm curious of the logic behind/usage of the VHF radio for gunners. UHF and FM are clearly no-brainers.

Ironically enough, BST's website lists the AH-1G as one of their aircraft. With their tempo of delivering products, I would suspect the Cobra isn't too far out.

That would hold true if the poll is something fairly recently added, or the vast majority of voting has been done as of late...but neither are not. It has been well established in values way before even the mention of BST's F-15C. I'm not suggesting that the F-16 would be a bad choice for DCS. On the contrary, ANY aircraft of DCS quality is a good choice whether the plane is madly popular or not. In the end, someone wins. Can you currently get your Viper fix? Yes, you can. Must be nice. See my comments below regarding BMS. I roughly did also & remember it well. Though, my amusement isn't for the reasons you suspect. Though, I don't think hordes will come from BMS. Many? That's subjective, making the debate rather moot. Whole squadrons? I'm sure there will be a few. Nonetheless, DCS: Fighting Falcon wouldn't be the end-all for that community. For one, it's a great sim for those with less-than-great systems. Second, the dynamic campaign. Third, loyal Falcon users (even that "other version" of Falcon had a die-hard following, even after BMS was released). For as many who say they would love the F-16, I've also read comments from a great number of others who have suggested not leaving. Nonetheless, I think we all are stating the same thing. It's a multi-role aircraft, of course it'll sell well. How it will compare to the Hornet will be quite interesting. Redding? Small world, neighbor. It would be nice for partnering companies to build both an aircraft and an opposition equivalent. Though, I see many good aircraft being left out of the mix (primarily European) since the blue side focus has traditionally been the US. The day that both the red/blue sides have a decent number of DCS aircraft to simulate an actual war with minimal airborne AI...yeah. Heaven.

Noted.

I don't think that's necessarily true, nor as many as you would think. Remember, there were a lot of F/A-18 pictures, etc found on their Facebook, not forgetting the mention of the Hornet as a future release. Enough was out there to where someone could reasonably assume it would be "the one". As far as the Viper, I think I would have laughed more about its release than be happy with it. By the list already provided, we'll see the F/A-18C before any variant of the F-16. Seems fair considering the Viper has a dedicated sim specifically for it (not that it's any reason to not make/add it). I would be glad to see ED leave it well enough alone for a while. Then again, multi-role aircraft is where you'll find the big bucks. You never know. At this point who cares? Though not the Viper or Hornet, I'm very glad it's the Eagle. Hell, I would have been happy with a Russian fighter. We really need a DCS fast jet, regardless. EDITS TO ADD: Does anyone else find it ironic that, in contrast to the poll above, the first fast mover we get is the one with the least amount of votes? Yet I bet it'll sell like hotcakes. Funny that.

Called it back in the beginning of 2012 :thumbup:

He was being facetious.

That was actually something else I was going to bring up but chose not to since I didn't have actual quotes handy. I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers this.

Thank you Memphis, you spoke exactly what I was thinking. Even if one guy is working on the jet while everyone else is developing the Mustang, it's still being developed in parallel, right? ;) It's our fault that we assumed that equal emphasis was given to each model. I was basing ED's next aircraft on the Gamingshogun's interview in March 2011. Now I understand how some things can change a bit, so I kind of nodded at the mention of the Mustang (announced in November) being tossed in the mix. Now suddenly there's multi-announcements (hype) concerning the Mustang & a year after the release of the A-10 we're still quite possibly years out from even seeing anything fast moving? Yup, that's a good business model right there. Inform customers of the next product and deliver 2 new products before it. I guess it's just me & my lack of flexibility & understanding. Considering there are multiple groups/wings I'm personally aware of that have already stood up a squadron in (reasonable) anticipation for a jet based on the same information...but nevermind, that's their fault too. After all, no one forced them to do it/gave them any insight that it would be released soon. But nah, if you want fighters that's what FC is for right? Wait, isn't that the game that was hacked that still isn't resolved after it was mentioned in January? :doh: It's now to the point where we'll believe it when we see it. I really can't believe I'm saying this, but it's beginning to smell a lot like fighterops around here. Your word? It means a whole lot of squat right about now. -A happy customer

Oh man, nice! Thanks for sharing!

+1 as well, although "Flying Legends" seems like a pretty narrow picking of aircraft. If it's TFC based, don't expect any jets at all. Maybe a new sub series with it's own clever little title?

Nice :D Thanks!

Do these list the correct-wrong headings or the wrong-wrong headings?

The irony of this comment being made (by someone with "ED" in his title no less) in this particular topic is overwhelmingly humorous. Although I do get your point, the "surface value" is a knee-slapper. Bravo sir. +1 for cracking me the hell up ETA: No joy on rep, already hit you recently.

Exactly ;) An agreement with a company such as TM/Saitek/CH/whatever would be NOT to give advanced notice to their competitors. Basically, they give ED some $$$ in order to find out the next aircraft & develop a HOTAS. In turn, ED remains silent until ___ point. Nothing personal, it's just business.

Tomato tomatoe, they've already made it clear that playing secret squirrel is their approach in regards to release info. It could be based on a ton of different reasons. Hell, they could be hush while in contract with Thrustmaster. You & I will probably never know & in the end, it doesn't really matter at this point. Even though it's been 14 months, it's still quite early based on their past developmental timeline. Don't forget that an A-10 patch as well as FC3 is in the works as well. Folks can bitch, moan, groan, complain, etc. In the end people will just get wrinkles/gray hair and ED will still remain lip-zipped. It is what it is, but it's not the only high(ish)-fidelity sim available. Your call. For what it's worth, based on that same timeline we've already passed the half-way mark at least :D

Black Shark was released in April 2009 Warthog was released in February 2011, 22 months after Black Shark. Today is March (let's say April) 2012, 14 months after Warthog. All of this doesn't include all the intermediate work/releases done between projects. There is certainly a lot more going on right now compared to the months between BS1 release & WH. By my math, based on past (general) developmental tempo, you have 8+ more months before you can raise hell.

All evidence points to a US fixed wing jet. Everything else is just a scotoma.

To clarify, the video wasn't a tutorial of how things should be done at each and every target engagement, it was just showing the capabilities of the CDU per Chrisakky's post. To each (group) their own flavor. As far as the FPLAN goes, there are tons who have (by far) more expertise/experience than I...but on the surface it seems like a pretty handy tool to use in an AFAC role. I'm sure the A-10 gurus can/will give better info regarding it.

Something similar in video format:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9nhxcd_s6A Further.... Lat/long Coordinates http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1129615&postcount=3 UTM Coordinates http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1126958&postcount=4 Bullseye calls http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1173664%23post1173664

I JUST came here to say your mod worked in follow-on missions. It's only limited to the "interdiction HQ" mission in the campaign (that I've seen thus far). Still, ty for the heads up & fix!

Yeah. If you look at a few guides you'll see the Mission Success banner displayed.