Dimebag

Good point GGTharos, however, I wonder how easy it will be to bring KA-50 up to warthog standards? If they went down a modular route where aircraft are installed into the main game, I would imagine the process would be much easier, especially when large changes are made. Also it would allow a much nicer integration of the DCS series into a single executable, rather than having separate ones for KA-50 and A-10c for single and multiplayer. God help my poor desktop when the next DCS fighter is released, that would be 6 icons for DCS sims alone, when we could just have one.

I have felt that myself, however if they continue to enable the core aircraft systems to be easily imported into future updated engines then it might not be a problem. What they really need to do is slowly add each aircraft to the engine along with the Previous, abandoning old engines as they go, as they will hold them back trying to make them compatible with each other. They need to somehow make the next DCS extremely compatible with "add on" aircraft, so previous DCS aircraft can just be "uploaded" into the new engine. Basically the aircraft needs to be stand alone, and it makes sense to do this with the terrain, and even the mission generator system, so an old one can merely be "replaced" with a new better one. Modular is what I am trying to get at. This would allow longevity and compatibility of previous aircraft and features with current engines. But then I have no idea how hard this would be to achieve, I am guessing extremely hard, and would require a complete rewrite of the engine, aircraft systems, mission system, and terrain system.

The thought that MS are alienating their main audience in the hopes of snagging a few million casual gamers to drop a small chunk of change on a sub par arcade flight game doesn't really phase me. I did like the potential that the VRS Tacpack was heading with fsx, and I do intend to have a go some time soon. But I am truly excited about the upcoming DCS fighter. With it will come a truly realistic fighter experience, with the most detailed simulation of a fighter jet to date no doubt. The depth of the avionics will surely trump most other sims, maybe even a-10c, and with the upcoming EDGE terrain system which will bring new life to the world we fly in, the possible graphical migistry allowed by Dx11 effects, hopefully a new theatre of war, and with the expansions allowed to game dynamics through the addition of upgraded mission editor capabilities towards something resembling a dynamic campaign system, I will be like... "there are other sims? But why? We have everything we could ever want!" So Microsoft might be able to squeeze a few extra bucks out of a few unsuspecting casual gamers, however they won't be fooled twice once they realize there is nothing really of worth in MS flight, and MS can say goodbye to those who truly love flight and the nuances that go along with it, and who see those nuances not as inconveniences which should be eradicated, but as the essence of what flight, and fight simming is about. I just wish MS realized this too, as they unfortunately a the main representative of all that is flight simming. But not for long. I expect there will be a mass exodus from Microsoft with simmers looking for a new home, and ED will provide them with that shelter which we all crave.

If you really want to use the Ministick as a trim pad, why not assign zone function commands for the x and y axis of the Ministick with elevator trim nose down as +y, nose down as -y, trim left as -x and trim right as +x? There is no reason why that shouldn't work. The only problem then is you need to move the axis everytime you want to trim, can't NSF click a button. Don't forget to add atleast 15% deadzone for the Ministick (I do it in game) because the Ministick is very touchy. All you sacrifice that way is an analogue trim function, which I can tell you from experience, sucks ass anyway.

Lmao riboyster, I can't imagine there is much info on that bird. Also, DCS seems to focus on warfare within our atmosphere.

Never post a thread named this in the news section unless your name is wags! You nearly gave me a heart attack damn you! :P

Thanks, so does that mean if you are rotating 180° you need atleast 3 keys, 4 for 270°, 5 for 360°, or did I completely miss the point?

Morkva_55, Thankyou! I tried your procedure and it worked. The problem I had was, for the actual axis I selected, it was set to argument based float, and I changed it to beizer float as that was what you had in your picture and it allowed me to create the keys for rotation. Works fine now. T

Thanks Morkva, I will try what you said.

I've recently been working on creating a 3d cockpit for a BAE Hawk Mk. 127 in 3ds max 8, for the Virtual Roulettes formation team. Here is my progress on the model: I am still in the process of completing the model itself and the various components, but after becoming curious about hot to create working instruments, and after a bit of digging I discovered you need to use argument based animations. I have gone through the su-27 kabina file and found all of the argument numbers and parameters I need. I wanted to attempt an animation, in this case the throttle, however I am having trouble even setting it up in 3ds max. I select the throttle, then move the pivot point in the hierarchy section to the appropriate location, then select the motion tab, create an argument based rotation, create my argument (104 for throttle movement), then select 'Y rotation : argbased float'. I attempt to make 3 keys for position, rotation, and scale, however I can only create keys for position and scale, the rotation key create button does nothing! I've dug around and can only find one other person who had a similar problem and fixed it by setting 'Euler XYZ to default, after he made argument based rotation default. I tried this, but to no avail. What is interesting is, my throttle is made of several objects and buttons, which I have grouped to keep them together. When they are grouped, I can't even make a rotation key in euler xyz, however when I ungroup them, I can! But still not in arg based rotation! Go figure... I'm pulling my hair out trying to work it out. I'm hoping someone else has come up against this problem, and if so has found a solution. Thanks. :helpsmilie: