Demongornot

That want mean that the only way to see actual Flaming Cliff's plane transformed into hardcore sim with clickable cockpit and advanced avionic like A10C and KA-50 will be to wait an official DCS aircraft who can't be free ? :/ And if ED decide to create DCS A10A we will have both DCS and Flaming Cliff variant ? A good and realist compromise can be to see actual Flaming Cliff's aircraft update at the same level than the SU-25T ?

Nice idea !!! I have already imagine the A10A possibility and that can be nice ! Maybe an A10A based on the A10C with the same realism level with clickable cockpit in Flaming Cliff 3, that can be awesome ! The A10A are really more complex than the A10C and a lot of work are already done with the C, like flight model, only the weight and the avionic change, the aircraft have the same form, that want mean the same reaction on the air, ED have only the clickable cockpit and the old and simple avionic to do, that was not the hardest and longest thing, and i wonder that for next aircraft too we will have several versions !!! Same for AI plane !!!

Je pense que ça va être sympa de pouvoir utiliser le Mustang, par contre je pense que on va souvent partir en vrille au début, ou crasher au roulage, les phases de roulage et décollage/atterrissage étaient quand même redouter a l'époque... Le pauvre Mustang risque de s'ennuyais seul, j'espère qu'un 2em Warbird ennemie du Mustang serra créer, en tout cas j'ai hâte de voir P51D vs A10C ou contre le prochain fighter de DCS, mais je pense que ça risque d'être délicat contre les menaces modernes, surtout les missiles IR, le Mustang n'a aucuns moyen de détecter l'approche d'un AIM-9, ça obligera a souvent surveiller les alentours, comme a l'époque... Toujours pas d'info sur la date de sortie du Mustang ? Et la collaboration avec The Fighter Collection pour le P51D Mustang peut-elle donnée naissance a un simulateur parallèle a DCS avec plusieurs appareils notamment le Mustang de DCS Flying Legend avec le même niveau de fidélité ? ça serrais mieux que tout les simulateur WWII actuel pas assez avancez en avionique et model de vol !!! Analogical Combat Simulator en référence au anciennes technologies :D Le premier simulateur WW2 hardcore, ce serrais vraiment génial !!! Un peux comme Falcon 4 avec un seul appareil au début, le Mustang, puis d'autres avec le temps ! Et une chance de pouvoir voir la version 2 places du Mustang assez rapidement pour introduire les premier appareils biplace ?

@EaglePryde Yes i know but for the moment the only thing we can do its unrealistic mission, that will take long time for ED to write it but its important, its supposed to be a simulator and in real life the war on a battlefield happen like i have describe my idea of dynamic battlefield who have for big difference to be possible for single player and multiplayer too. And for do it in real time the solution are simple for power needed. DCS use only 2 CPU core (one for the sim itself and another for the sound engine), a majority of people use more than 2 core's CPU if the IA have a dedicated CPU core that will permit to write the DC regardless the power optimization (in the begin, that can be done after) and that can finally correct the actual stupid horrible and useless AI who make only stupid thing, never work, and never ask close to the reality. The problem with any aircraft simulator its that the creator always think that when something are useless that ca be removed, and finally that make a sim who are ultra realistic for aircraft but that's all, nothing else are realistic... AI are stupid and bad and don't have any human comportment, and that can be scripted... The simple fact to "humanize" the AI can finally in same time correct a lot of problems and make better AI, like soldier under fire don't wait to die without moving, or aircraft make ground strike with long and quiet turn during a wartime... Like i have say here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81295 Its like : everyone told me that "photorealistic" texture are bad cause its unrealistic due to fact that its taken from a satellite regardless the weather when its done, that true, but first, a texture can be corrected, and more important, compare any "photorealistic" texture from FSX or Aerofly FS or any other with texture in DCS who actually look bad, unrealistic and everytime i look the ground i ask to myself : what this color its supposed to represented, if only actual texture can be correct, well yes then, "photorealistic" texture are uesless, but in actual sim that can finally be one of the best graphic change that we can't see, about graphic, are you see how the sun are unrealistic ? poor little yellow ball, we don't have any reflection, the aircraft 3D model and texture are nice, but it look plastic and without reflection and better and more realistic light ambiance and color, that will always look plastic. Look that : "i talk only about reflection effect on the texture, nothing else, that look hyper realistic, like true metal in real life and not plastic. If we ask to ED to do it them will say that its useless, and always the same people will say that its not realistic or any other lie like that like if actually its realistic... Best example here : Perfect photorealistic scenery (and its funny to see people who still saying that its not realistic, like if DCS are better than that... I have always say that : advanced 3D (for ground) CLOSE (not the same) rending that what we have in Arma 2 or Arma 3 (who have a giant map compare to Arma 2) for ONLY 5 Km (Arma rending that at 10 Km with a lot of thing useless for aircraft simulator "like interior of house" and who can be deleted and save a lot of power) and over 5Km ONLY texture on basic ground geometry, texture study only for be show over 5Km, low resolution i want mean, and the texture who just show 3D object drawn on it and if its perfectly synchronized with the place of the 3D object what will be the result ? Perfect graphic rending like Arma for close object and hyper realistic texture for more. Why ? cause over 5km we DON'T see the difference against 3D and 2D, in real life and in a video game, only big building, antenna and big/high thing need to be show, my idea are SIMPLE and TOTALLY POSSIBLE and can give perfect graphic rending for finally less performance compare to actual... Arma can show more than 100 units without take more performance than DCS with only 4 A10C on the parking... And perfect reflection on the aircraft who make the texture look like real life aircraft, and not plastic, and if we disabled the reflection that will look simply plastic, DCS calculate shadows but don't calculate reflection...Reflection are almost more important than shadows... Its like why the wingtip vortex are modeled and another effect that we ask more and who are more visual impact are not modeled, the wing vapor ? Yes of course its nice http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:F-15_wingtip_vortices.jpg but in internal view the wing condensation are really more visible... Its a lot of little details confederate like useless one after one that can finally transform a nice "the best" possible simulator into a banal simulator full of bug, error, bad AI and unrealistic/ugly graphic. And the worst, ED don't make it and don't give us any SDK for do it ourself... Like don't create ground crew (and if only one day we get to have one from ED it will take incredible performance for show bad animation) what will happen if the next aircraft is an Hornet with carrier OPS ? Cause in a carrier we need to have ground crew for placing the aircraft correctly on the catapult, the solution will be to use external view... And the worst thing about carrier its not that in DCS we have a completely empty carrier where the aircraft spawn, the worst thing its that the nice AI carrier full of aircraft with internal bridge visible and several animation (this carrier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRdcQwpGq1U ) take less performance than empty DCS's carrier... And after people laugh to me when i say that DCS are not optimized and can be better... Same thing with X plane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPQxWLo5PZU Mainly in the middle of the sea, in the middle of nowhere where the only thing that we have to calculate are the sea and a single ugly carrier without any details who take more performance than FSX with carrier full of aircraft and who navigate in the border of a big city (who take a lot of performance in FSX)... The proof that like everytime in simulator, the creator are finally missed everything about the pilot (just maybe G effect on the view and hypoxia and nothing more) pilot don't feel heat or cold, internal temperature are not important, same for pressure and a lot of thing that i will don't talk about cause i will see incredible long list of people who will say that its impossible (regardless the fact that other game/simulator already do it without need a NASA's CPU) or that its useless... But the problem are : we don't embody a pilot, we embody the aircraft with a camera on the seat... And regardless the fact that the sim are already not (or badly) optimized, it is not optimized for internal view, in fact a true simulator must be optimized for internal view ONLY, external view must be optional and don't need to be optimized... 3D model of aircraft are so nice, the problem its that more than 3 in the field of view and the simulator take more power than what a supercomputer can give... Why ? cause 3D morel are extremely advanced (3D model that we can only see details when we using external view) and for balance environment are ugly. Its like the fact that the aerodynamic force CREATED by the aircraft are totally missed, no vortex, no turbulence, like if its not important, my favorite non-fighter military aircraft, the XB-70 have know a crash cause an aircraft who flying close to him was sucked by the vortex and do a collision... Its important but its considerate like not important by created, then that not done... And maybe people will say that its impossible to simulate it (and that will just make me laugh) but what about glider simulator (like "Condor The Competition Soaring Simulator") who perfectly simulate it then ? Its like collisionable tree, fr Flaming Cliff its not important, for A10C same, but its stupid for Black Shark to not including that, the Black Shark take advantage of the terrain MAINLY building and tree, yes ok the problem will be what happen for people with little configuration ? its simple, collision must be not created by tree itself but by forest/tree area, what happen in any other game ? the tree are simply reduced in details/complexity, same for DCS, adding better tree than actual and baddest with 4 options: Distance of view (like actual), tree shadow (like actually too), tree density (the collisionable forest area still the same but the number of tree can be reduced in this area) and tree complexity (for change against actual to 2D tree (for little PC configuration) and better (for people who have nice computer) and the best, an option : improved single tree (like in the mods of GrandSurf, tree around airbase and other single tree with nice detailed 3D model... Etc etc etc, the list of thing who MUST be change and who are simply conscious forget are impressive... I hope the list of things i have write here will one day help for change things, ED must change it and give us better SIM cause actually its more a procedure simulator than a real life simulator with a long list of bugs and missing things...And when anyone know that we say the truth people who over-defending ED work regardless if its true or not will ask us if we prefer "eyecandy" (like if the GIANT list of thing who must be change are not important and like if that only include visual) or patch for bug correction ? Finally i prefer eyecandy and the things that we have missed cause every patch add new bug and don't correct precedent...Like multiplayer who are the most important thing to fix, always disconnected, always bug and packet lost who simply make aircraft act like an UFO by crossing 3 time the map in 2 seconds and who are impossible to flying if formation with if we don't want to be killed by virtual collision who never happen... If ED can take time for think about my dynamic battlefield idea, we just already get it and we can have just after that the Dynamics Campaign when the AI will be completely rewrite... My dynamic battlefield idea are simplest than the dynamic campaign cause almost only PLAYER control the simulator and the battlefield, its really more easy to create than the version only controlled by AI who generate itself their own flight plan, in my idea the player who are commander and the player who embody flight commanding center personal will guide pilot and create flight plan, with VOIP directly based on the frequency (military radio voice effect) and working radio encrypting, that can become the most realistic simulator ever, cause what happen on the battlefield are really important, and actually, the single mission without any possibility to continue, in single AND in multiplayer its far to be realistic... I have already see people who don't buy this game cause dynamic campaign are missing, with my idea, its more attractive than a dynamic campaign cause its exactly the same thing, we really life a true war or conflict with real consequence from our actions. Its can be created really fast compare to a dynamic campaign cause its just adding possibility, after the AI itself don't will change, just keep acting like before, the motor will be all player who will finally perform complex task like decide of the strategy, decide of the flight plan, planing an attack, manage pilot, airbase, secondary base/sub-base and outpost, patrol and preventive actions and any other things... And in ca be really great and smart to create that before create dynamic campaign, the experience of the player, the actions and everything can finally be observed, analysed and using for create the dynamic campaign. My idea not will be easy and fast to be created, i know, but anyways for create true dynamic campaign all this possibility must be write and compare to true dynamic campaign it will be simply easy and fast to write, and before create dynamic campaign AI must be radically change and improved... Imagine for the next DCS aircraft if only we can have for multiplayer my dynamic battlefield idea AND my list of thing who must be change that i have write before... That simply can become the best simulator ever and attract a lot of people. Imagine the unlimited possibility if first, ED introduce dual seat with shared cockpit and give us SDK... Imagine with my dynamic battlefield idea when people will begin to create advanced and realistic ground vehicle, like tank, AAA, SAM and other, or when people will begin to create AWACS with one player as pilot, another as copilot, and other as watcher, same for Tanker with pilot, copilot and boomer, possibility to embody control tower, with VOIP that just will be perfect, or possibility to help pilot in the aerial command center of my dynamic battlefield idea...THAT is my dream, and i know fan can't create AWACS really advanced like actual DCS aircraft, but maybe better than Flaming Cliff's aircraft, and its will be better to have semi realistic AWACS or TANKER than nothing... Sorry for the looooong post... But i think its important to say all this things...

@ Speed In fact this idea its really more realistic and will give more immersion than actual mission who are short and who don't permit a lot of things its why i wonder see that. If ED do it the simulator will become really attractive and that will be the first step to a new Dynamic Campaign system, and my idea its exactly how war happen in a country finally, that can give more realism, i hope ED will understand and want that, actually a lot of people want several thing but that not change a lot of things finally, its only ED who can decide finally... And don't forget that it will be hard and not easy and fast to become commander and don't forget too that like in real SAM can be vulnerable to ground force, artillery or cruise missile, or (and its the best example of the possibility of my idea) imagine we see C130 dropping fast ground vehicle back to the base and the fast vehicle (or any other spy mission) will transmit SAM site location, formation of A10C or KA-50 (or SEAD with the next aircraft) flying low and just at the last moment firing bomb using TOSS Bombing with CBU 97 and kill your SAM site, but you can avoid it with an AWACS for watch low flying aircraft but it will be a priority target for enemy forces, same thing if you don't use aircraft with ground radar enemy can try to kill your AWACS with mobile SAM or simply destroy your SAM using tank formation, its why you must assign player to patrol fly but you will not be protected against coordinated strike by several enemy base, and don't forget that you will not have unlimited SAM, you will need to wait that your country send you new force or steal it...etc etc incredible possibility choice, its what i feel. About save game, for multiplayer that don't will be necessary, mainly if that using a dedicated server like ED planing to do, we just will need to same player data, just a logbook, and for the single player version yes we will need game saving, for multiplayer for any CTD or disconnection an AI can simply take the control of the player plane and go to landing to the assigned airport. But i'm sure saving SIM state its not hard, replay do more complicated, and finally when we open new mission file its exactly like if we loading save game. What happen if after you fly you save the replay and when you want to continue your mission you play the replay file, you wait before the end and you use the function for take control ? You will simply have a restore point without CTD (if we forget that sometime the replay are totally inaccurate) Finally ED can use new replay system, more accurate, (cause actually we see in replay aircraft who are killed and who are not in the original mission, or for me my aircraft who finish on the grass by out the taxiway and before take off and finally never will take off) A new replay system who act like Tacview where the aircraft are forced to follow an exactly position and where damage/destroy are only possible by replay track data and not due to AI who are supposed to act always exactly same (cause sometime their act different). Add to that the rewind option (a lot of people will be happy with this option for Replay) and an option for simply : Load the end of the replay with player control (called: Load last state). That better than any save game and restore point cause we can use it like save game/restore point but exactly when we want (like choose 12mn 05s in a mission of 32mn 45s) and obtain more accurate replay with better possibility for video maker or people who want to analyst their flight (cause actually if we miss the thing that we want to see we are forced to restart the replay) ED just have to create a better replay track like Tacview or for better example like what we see in CMR Dirt 2/3, or like in Falcon 4 If the replay are saved into a new file every minutes (who will be compiled into a single at the next start) or in continue by adding data in the track file, that will simply avoid any game state loose by CTD. Everyone will have benefice, people who want save game, people who want restore point, people who are video maker, people who want to analyse their flight and people like me who suffer to inaccurate replay track, perfect for save any Dynamic Campaign or my Dynamic Battlefield idea !

Not matter what it is (F16 F15 F18 ) the next DCS aircraft will have a radar and the IFF of the next aircraft and in the A10C will be really useful. Anyways A10C will know big change (like BS2) for using EDGE and other new thing who will coming with FC3 and after with the next aircraft with EDGE and new feature, and if in FC3 we can really use IFF function and RADAR in planes or if we will need to wait for the next aircraft, the IFF panel will be patched cause actually it not work at 100% (cause its useless actually, or almost). If aircraft with radar who can really use IFF coming and patch for complete the actual in DCS the IFF panel will begin to be useful. And the radio encrypting are useless cause we don't have VoIP in DCS, maybe ED will give us a correct version of the multiplayer without stupid lag and packet lost and better bandswitch for VoIP and finally have better than TARS directly integrated into DCS and in this case the KY-58 will be useful ! I hope ED will do it, and its not complicated to integrate VoIP and correct actual multiplayer...

Its funny to see how DCS exploit really bad the computer power (with or without SLI/Crossfire) that give us low FPS (for bad graphic rending) and that not use correctly the power of the computer, like i have already see in FPS test more FPS for the same scene with maximum graphic setting than minimum setting (impossible for a "normal" optimization and correct graphic engine), and after people laugh to me when i say that it is extremely bad optimized... People have to admit that : Better computer configuration possible (except maybe with HD 79xx) -> lower FPS possible... GTX 590 its a double 580, the most powerful single card of the market after HD79xx, the power of a single or even half power of a 580 (cause sometime SLI/Crossfire will divide FPS by two) can't give for a so bad graphic rending a so low FPS...For the CPU (the actual best for any video game in 3D) no core are using at 100%, its a stupid thing to see for a software based to the CPU power... Its totally unique, impossible to see it and when we compare the visual result its totally incredible to see how that can eat power for...nothing...I hope EDGE will be better, will correctly take CPU power and a dedicated CPU core for AI will be nice when we see how stupid are actual AI and i hope SLI/Crossfire will be correctly using...But graphic and FPS based to CPU power its the stupidest thing i have ever see, ok no patch for correct it (ED are busy to create only patch who correct nothing and give more bug for the moment) but i hope EDGE will not do the same stupid thing... Its hard to see bad graphic with low FPS for a really good computer and for the price of all this simulator... The only thing to do : prey for EDGE will be better and hope that ED will not release it in 20 year... For the moment try to run on a single GPU, disabled SLI manually or with application profile.

Okey for a normal flight but for a war situation with scramble take off are you sure that the pilot will really wait for taxi (sometime parking its far from runway) and take off after DCS must simulate emergency situation too...

@Macadam Cow perfect screenshot !!! If only we can have the same color and effect in DCS that will be nice !

Move head after ejection don't make nice pilot animation in cockpit and during ejection, but we will never get it badly, Seven G have a nice pilot with really impressive animation of the head who look realistic, the pilot in DCS when we moving on the ground are absolutely horrible, we can't run, we walk weirdly and we can do Shuffle Dance without problems... ED don't care about visual rending and animation, and finally only the plane itself are realist, the rest are unrealistic and horrible, or missing... Only pilot animation that we can get if only we meet it again with EDGE will be a bad animation of pilot with extremely unrealistic head movement and bad animation create in 2 minutes for ejection, but we finally simply never will see any ejection animation cause that will be considerate like eyecandy only, other game do it for a single short sequence but for a thing that we do a lot of time (its true we need to eject a lot of time cause immersion are bad and reaction too and finally accident happen easily) ED don't will do it...Like the explosion effect and the wing vapor and the mach vapor cone or again the ground crew and other things that we ask since several years !!! Pilot body are missing since BS2 and A10C 1.0 cause to cockpit shadows, and anyways the pilot body that we have in BS1 are far to be nice, unrealistic color, bad forms, bad animation for the poor number that we have and no possibility to use mission data on the legs, Falcon 4 (the first) do it, but for ED sadly its considerate like useless for the sim i'm sure or for latter... We have more chance to create our own graphic engine (with nice graphic and with optimization unlike actual) with our own 3D model and animation that see ED give us a nice pilot animation... And i really afraid to think about Combined Arms, imagine if when we embody JTAC we have the same soldier animation and the same system for moving that the pilot have...I'm sure that will happen...Its sad... So we can maybe move our head but we don't see any ejection animation and people who will told that the same pilot body with the same animation than in this video are not possible for DCS simply lie ! Its just cause ED don't want to give us that, we have a semi realistic software completely ugly and full of bug and that will change only when ED will have time for correct that, i hope that will be soon ! I hope that will change one day...

I agree and anyways I have already buy LOMAC+FC+FC2+BS+A10C+BS2 and when it will coming FC3, P51D and Combined Arms (i have buy the Beta version of A10C i don't will need to buy the Nevada) and maybe we will have other thing to buy So finally its already close to 500 for me, mainly if we considerate that i have buy the Hotas Warthog for DCS A10C only and my computer are mainly buy for simulation, its why i always try to obtain better sim, that hurt me to have buy a computer for life my passion and finally life it badly cause all sim are bad and know that we can have not perfect but really better than that... And if the sim will be nice and really merit to be buy at 500 cause it include nice thing and not stupid and missing thing like today i will maybe buy it for 500, but if the sim will one day become better that was not for today due to work quantity that ED have with FC3 combined Arms, Nevada and Next aircraft and after release in, patch it, maybe after or when we will have SDK we will get better sim, the aircraft itself of DCS are perfect but the rest its poor, nothing are correct, baddest AI i have ever see, poor graphic rending (except for vehicle but only for 3D model) no other possibility than short mission without any realism and a lot of bug...We are really far of the 500$ simulator, and if my wish come true then DCS will maybe merit the actual price, but nothing more...Cause ED can do REALLY MORE and BETTER than that... And if one day i find a simulator with descent graphic and realism/possibility and other who merit to be pay 500, i will build a cockpit and buy a dedicated computer and be crazy : use scalar wave emitter technology and simulate G effect :megalol: I think my wishlist are really modest and its exactly what what we must have and we don't have to ask that :mad: But we never will obtain it (except when we will have a good SDK) cause a lot of people don't understand that my wishlist (like graphic) are for the good of all and not only for me, when this people try to discredit me them finally punish themselves :doh::megalol: I hope one day we will see a simulator who will merit to be buy 500$/€ But actually for what it is, DCS don't merit the actual price and never will merit to be buy 500 even if my wishlist come true...

FC3 and Combined Arms wish list Just for people say wish list for FC3 and Combined Arms only, not for Flying Legend, next aircraft or actual. My wish : New flyable aircraft in FC3, if the next DCS aircraft its the Hornet : F-15E and F-16, if its the Eagle : F-18 and F-16 and if its the F-16 : F-15E and F-18 flyable in FC3, actually USA don't have multirole in Flaming Cliff. More than always US and Russian aircraft ! UK, French, Japaneses, Chinese or any other. Flyable Mirage 2000, Etandard, Jaguar*, Harrier or any other... Helicopter flyable with complexity/realism close to the level of the SU-25T AH-1, AH-64, MI-28, MI-24, EC665 Tigre or other Clickable cockpit and a little more avionic and improved flying model for actual aircraft for balance difficulty in multiplayer with BS and A10C cause if the aircraft are easy to pilot in FC3 that will be bad for people in BS and A10C, same for P51D and the futur aircraft with multiplayer compatibility. Realistic ground vehicle, tank or anti aircraft AAA or SAM like : SA-8 gecko, 9K330 Tor or for softer : Strela or Tunguska and US equivalent. M1 Abram or T-80/90 ! can be nice for combined arms than only JTAC possibility. New AI unit like vehicle, boat or civil vehicle, aircraft and other ! Better AI : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81295 with more tactic, realistic, avoid useless collision and really more improved for ground engaging and other... Improved multiplayer who not always be disconnected, bad ping (with good connection for host and player) and without problem of player aircraft position who always move and finally kill us by virtual collision when we try formation flight and other MP problems... Ground crew with nice animation and object like : GPU with cable we will be connected with nice animation to the aircraft, fuel tank with animation of pipe connection, animation for loading weapon when rearming, fire truck coming and fire water when we crash on the runway or on the side with real consequence for fire and electrical system. Cable and net at the end of the runway (and in carrier too) for emergency landing and more general interaction... Better ATC with real navigation, improved ground guidance for parking area, possibility to take off with wingman or group (see my first link for AI) and if possible mission control center like in real. Pilot body with nice animation and custom mission data/checklist and other on the legs New explosion effect, vapor on wings, contrail corrected (who not start inside the reactor) and other visual effect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xywrekEIJIg for example See vibration in the cockpit when we pull hard the aircraft or when firing gun (with effect on instrument/avionic like in real) And nice thing : turbulence when we cross another aircraft trajectory who can (like in real) cause crash for light aircraft and helicopter or loose of control. Nice to have : graphic optimization for stop to lagging for...nothing... with the best actual graphic card and Collisions with trees and we can do for small configuration : show less AND 2D tree for show forest area and finally have collision with forest area and not collision with tree itself, perfect for multiplayer synchronization. Better replay (sometime we see big difference like aircraft shot down during mission who are not during replay or worst our aircraft shot down during replay and finally its never happen, or aircraft crash on grass during landing or finally never take off cause it will out of taxyway and a lot of other problems. More options like possibility to rewind (if we miss important thing we need to take 5 minutes for restart track and if its at the end of the track its the worst) Dynamic battlefield for dedicated server : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84001 and same for singleplayer (dynamic campaign) Improved options and possibility during game http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=82457 3D editor/library. Its my and a reasonable wishlist, i know all this things can't be, but one or several can be nice ! And you people ? your wishlist ? Edit : Thanks Joey45 @Admin why turn my threat into a simple post ? we don't have any wishlist thread only dedicated to FC3 and Combined Arms...My wish will be useless here and no one will have the possibility to expose wish only for FC3 and combined arms...

I wonder see the Hornet but not matter what the next will be. I wonder see THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xywrekEIJIg I talk about the vapor and the flexibility of the wings, the pilot body with NICE animation fluid and realistic and the custom camera. I wish see that on the next DCS

The same thing than my idea here : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84001 But for single player with advanced AI for manage can be a perfect dynamic campaign

I wonder see a dedicated server but its will be better if we can have simple and another like my idea : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84001

Look my idea here, its for multiplayer with dedicated server but can be using for solo as dynamic campaign. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84001

Part 2 :

Several screenshots of the perfect 3D model of the F-15E Strike Eagle in DCS ! Taking with DCS Black Shark 2 just after the release. Part 1 :

Yep i agree, like in tutorial mission we see guard on ground that look correct. In my screenshot its for an MP mission for training fly for A10C and KA-50 for formation and coordination between US and Russian military and its a role play of Russian and US mechanistic team who work together on a damaged A10C but badly we don't have mechanistic or any ground crew yet i use soldier for simulate them...

A series of screenshot of an improved ground parking place i have made : I think more ground vehicle/object and soldier at parking can be nice with ground crew ! More realistic parking place, soldier who protect aircraft like in real and ground crew with GPU, fuel tank/truck and other thing like in real ! And with the totally inaccurate mission editor its really hard to place correctly object/vehicle on the ground... I hope that better ground map or 3D editor will coming soon... And if you make ground crew please make a descent animation for people on the ground and not a strange animation totally unrealistic like when actual pilot walking (and can't run...) anyways we are at ground level with several tree/building around and we don't move, we can't see far away, that will be stupid and really bad optimized if that lag just cause we see animation, please optimize DCS correctly...

1: I'm so happy thanks ED ! ) "Cause its no nice, first Warbird ever with this level of realism i'm sure and the P-51D Mustang its the first warbird that i have know (in RC in a magazine) it always make me dream and its one of the most legendary WWI aircraft and it still using today with Reno Air Races ! P51D, P47 Thunderbolt, Spitfire or FW 190 or ME 109 and the F4U Corsair are the best WWII plane and i'm happy its one of them ! I have kill one without firing (before the crash landing) in Wing Of Prey :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gOhAJ5HzWU 2: I want carrier ops! For the next DCS aircraft i wonder see the F/A-18 (C,D,E,F) "Super" Hornet, but for Flying Legend i wonder see carrier OPS too, F4U Corsair or other aircraft than old WWII like legendary aircraft : A6 Intruder, F4 Phantom or the best of the beast :p F-14 tomcat !!! or french Super-Etandard http://avionique.free.fr/IMG/jpg/sem_appont.jpg (for change than always US and Russian plane) 3: I want two seater cockpit! For the Next DCS aircraft i wonder see the F-15E or a F/A-18D/F (anyways we can flying alone in a two seater aircraft) and for Flying Legend that can be nice with the legendary Tomcat, two seater and Carrier OPS in same time :p French Mirage IV ? with the spectacular JATO take off ! http://www.mirage4p.com/slides/photo/yfho/details_18.jpg Or why not the legendary Curtiss SB2C Helldiver for Two seater, Carrier OPS AND Diving Bomber :p 4: Flying Legends must have helicopters. Yeah why not the beautiful AH-1 Cobra !!! ? or another helicopter of Vietnam war like combat(+ standard) version of the Black Hawk or another !

I love the Super Hornet ! I want carrier OPS and feel the power of the catapult !

First its more the max ground geometry/complexity, texture, detail and 3D object in the map who are matter, some game have a map more bigger than DCS cause its use continue terrain generation and finally the size are unlimited and the graphic rending are close to Arma, i just want mean the same map area in Arma are not impossible but yes of course that will impact performances... But the 3D object ONLY are limited to 10Km, the map itself (only ground geometry + ground texture) are show more than that, water cover unlimited distance, and we don't need a NASA's computer for show it... And in a game like Arma and a lot of other FPS the horizon are badly not optimized for show scenery far away, but its not impossible, the problem today its not the performance, its a common accord between game maker and computer creator, show nice graphic rending with the lower performance requirement are not impossible, but AMD/ATI, Nvidia and Intel don't want that... A game like Arma can be optimized and read for aircraft simulation, show far away scenery are not the biggest problem, its far, the geometry don't need to be extremely detailed and the texture don't need to be detailed...And a smart people can create a giant sphere with evolution/dynamic ground texture for horizon, the result will be a nice detail level, nice performance and the SAME result than show really far away... Like RC aircraft simulator where we just evolve inside a giant sphere with a single texture. Imagine the same thing but with a dynamic texture who will evolve for always show what we will see if it was a 3D scenery. That will require a minimum computer power but not so many than only a 3D scenery beyond the side of this sphere and that will take big HDD place for this giant texture who will need to cover all the 3D map. Over 3/4 Km we can't see any difference between 3D object and 3D texture, and finally a 3D texture will be better than a 3D object due to low polygon effect and that will save a lot of power ;) A smart programmer who listen my will take long time to write that but the result will be finally better than only 3D object. Show only a 2D vertical image of several tree who will mask a forest will be more realistic for eyes and same the performance that all 3D tree will take, from above its the same, look how in FSX "for example" the ground texture who show tree are more realistic than 3D tree see from long range ! A lot of tweaks like that can permit to obtain BETTER graphic rending than Arma and the colossal power saved can easily work with my sphere idea and permit to show more than DCS scenery. But like always and before check if that can work people will just told me : its impossible...Like 3 year ago i have do a description of what i want for aircraft flying model (exactly what we have today with DCS, and maybe less) and everyone not stop to told me that its impossible :megalol: I hope one day people will understand that i do it for me AND for them... And air unit can be show more far away, its not only air unit who will kill performance, with relief we don't will see really far away anyways and we can show aircraft at 30Km and more and keep scenery 3D object to 10Km max. Anyways an aircraft like a 747 its hard to see at cruise altitude (10Km -> FL 300 -> 30 000 feet) from ground it look like a small white point... We can anyway show in DCS or in Arma the little white pixel but more than 10 Km its hard to see, 15 Km its the maximum distance without zoom, and over 30 Km its only for weapon who will using RADAR...

its funny to read you, always you say that everything are impossible... Why we need to see at 1000Km in Arma if we link it with DCS ? Why its impossible ? If you pilot an aircraft you use DCS side with DCS graphic engine, if you use ground vehicle or soldier you use Arma graphic engine, just need to create the same map for both... Arma with the same optimization than Take on Helicopter where we can see more far than Arma, combat between soldier, vehicle or JTAC job don't need more than 15Km of view and the total map size DON'T MATTER about performance, that just will take more HDD space but that's all; mainly if we only control ground vehicle and soldier, we can't move extremely faster and finally the render of the map will not be a problem. Ground and Naval forces except anti aircraft will be controlled by Arma (3) and flying vehicle, guided and air to ground/sea/air weapon controlled by DCS and maybe use another computer as server for control AI independently and get really better AI than extremely stupid and bad AI in DCS and good not but not so bad AI in Arma... We just will see in DCS ground force like everytime in DCS but controlled like a player but by player on Arma + AI and same for Arma we will see aircraft and helicopter like everytime in Arma but controlled by DCS player and AI Its no more complicated than that, using just ARMA as ground rending for Infantry and ground Vehicle only and DCS for flying machine cause DCS are so ugly for embody ground force, and finally AI only controlled by a common server only dedicated to AI for give a nice AI really nice and realistic. AI server simulate AI and control synchronization between AI, weapon, player position and action/interaction in DCS and Arma, you control a tank well you must use Arma side and people in aircraft will see you like any actual ground unit in DCS and you control an aircraft, its the same thing, you use DCS and people in Arma see your aircraft/helicopter flying and the position are directly controlled by the AI/Synchronization server... Arma its an idea but ED team must considerate the fact to create theirs own FPS simulator compatible with DCS series by a server intermediary and finally a single AI in a separate server will be more easy than synchronicity between two different AI and due to extremely stupid AI in DCS that can only be better... That will be the best thing who can happen to DCS with combined arms...Cause DCS = Digital Combat Simulator, maybe we will have tanks and other ground/sea vehicle soon, but if we using it with DCS graphic/physic and AI engine for ground ops, its totally useless and that will be the worst simulation ever... If ED do a contract with Bohemia Interactive that will be nice and faster than create theirs own ground force simulator but with more compatibility problems finally but its not impossible, that just depending of how its done if its done one day...

You do an incredible work, your addon will be the best thing ever happen to DCS world, i hope ED team will realize that and give you more possibility to do it in new A10C and BS2 ! I wonder see the same type of graphic rending everywhere in the simulator, you work are perfectly nice, that look so good. Thanks for give us a dream :p I hope you will do more video soon and i hope really you will find a solution for make it work for new A10C and BS2 Maybe one day ED team will understand that if them give us a complete SDK we will get many nice addons like your and DCS will be transform into a fantastic sim ! But the problem its that soon we will have FC3 and after that EDGE...Everything will change again and cause new problem for your magical addon... ED Team boring me about that...Them not give us a really nice sim and then not give us any possibility to make ourself a better sim...