Demongornot

Ground carrier, just a boat with big track :D Nevada will not be free, its not will be 100% associate with the next DCS aircraft, we can keep the Georgia with the Black Sea for carrier OPS and just flight without carrier with the Hornet like Swiss... No one talk about carrier OPS WITH Nevada map...

I wonder see the Super Hornet Single and Dual seat <3 But F-15E with possibility to be two or to use it alone will be really nice too, only bad thing can be the missing carrier OPS Maybe the F-16 its a nice aircraft but i prefer F-15 and F-18 For the Hornet the C/D variant will be a stupid choice when we see that the E/F Mk 1 are better without using more classified data but anyways both still nice ! And nice video for the Silent Eagle, i will buy one of them :D Don't forget that the Hornet too will have a stealth upgrade like the SE, maybe better ! And for the moment the newest aircraft is the F-35 (the first are now in service) its a carrier's aircraft multirole, like the Super Hornet...

Compare to create another aircraft its easy --" And yes is easy, that just take time, its just adding second cockpit its not the biggest challenge of the universe or of the creation of an aircraft... Create the aircraft is long and hard yes of course but i'm not sure that adding cockpit will be hard for people who can create a full realistic hardcore simulator...

When i have see the title of your post i have imagine that it will be officially announced :x Edge its sure we already see several screenshots. Nevada same Multitasking too EDGE will integrate it same thing for DX 11 Dynamic Campaign will be really nice and i wonder see my idea too : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84001 Carrier Ops technically we already have with the SU-33 but its not hyper realistic and its not an hardcore aircraft... And the Super Hornet will be perfect cause its a good aircraft and multirole ! And the best will be the F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornet, single AND dual seat !!! Anyway when the Single Seat will be done its will be easy to create the dual seat variant for ED. And it can be only the Super Hornet Mk1 the other upgrade use classified data.

A-4 is really nice but the legendary F-104 with the nice engine sound are awesome and the F-111 is a monster but dual seat in this configuration will cause fight in the cockpit, you use my switch, i use your switch, we use the same switch etc... The F-4 Will be perfect ! But finally for jet aircraft i wonder see the Tomcat !!! Or maybe the Mig 21 !

Nice :p Well the next Flying legend must be an enemy of the Mustang. That will be funny to try "Modern" fighter vs Mustang :p

I just will stop to talk about that, you want to still with the most ugly graphics rending ever ? ok is your problem, cause if you want to see any change you most not say thing like that (or you are stupid its another possibility) I don't have read any answer and i don't will do it. @Everyone : Still keep ugly graphic engine, when you will be bored you will maybe help my by finding a solution and not simply try to kill my idea... If you don't want better thing its not my problem.

@winz I talk about create a mix between Arma 2 capable to show 10Km 3D object with incredible nice details level without any low resolution texture or other bad pixel effect (like my screenshot show how DCS do it) and mix it with Aerofly FS how can show beautiful graphisms rending at medium and long range. Arma 2 can show 10 Km object and i have show proof that its useless and 5Km enough, and ok...He can't show 80km but Aerofly FS can without any problem show from 5Km to more than DCS with incredibly more beautiful than DCS. Arma can show 10Km 3D object and more for pure scenery, just decrease it to 5 km and same thing for useless details like extremely modeling ground relief or interior of house/building. Aerofly FS finally beat DCS for view distance, and ok...for really close its a bad texture but for medium and long range its perfect, we can see beautiful graphics rending at 100m over the ground, just decrease the resolution for see at 5km minimum and keep the possibility to show extreme long range. Mix between both are TOTALLY POSSIBLE and it finally don't need more computer than actual DCS or Arma at 10 km like in the video cause with what i have describe we use more beautiful part of both but keep in mind the fact to tweak everything for can mix both without finally need 2 time more power than DCS. So yes we can have nice 3D and texture of Arma 2 and nice medium long range and far horizon beauty of Aerofly FS. That for shot range http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ and that for the rest Show 3D object more than 5km show problems like appear like a bad pixel impossible to identified and will too suck more power for finally result really bad compare to beauty of good texture with good resolution. Its why i talk about Arma rending with 80km and more view range, i don't talk about Arma alone, but about Arma + Aerofly FS, or in fact just to mix the level of details of both, not to mix two graphic engine (anyway possible) but to so what both graphics engine do, and only big 3D object like big building, antenna and other will need to be show at more than 5Km, for the rest the transition from 2D texture to 3D object its not really possible to see if the texture at 5km and more integrate texture with ground above the 3D object AND the 3D object "drawn" in the texture at more than 5km The result will be perfectly adapted to simulation aircraft and finally will be so beautiful that we can play it at FPS like, perfect for Combined Arms possibility with Commander and the JTAC embody, imagine the possibility to see ground target in the same environment than Arma 2 with fidelity of DCS... And told my what 'performance boost' you talk about exactly that we see in DCS and how its work cause for this bad graphic rending i still lag with my good computer and if with this bad graphics that will don't lag, that can be "acceptable" but i see lag for bad graphics rending and i know that we can have without lag wonderful graphic rending... And graphics engine its DEFINITELY NOT a physic engine or a AI script, graphic engine DON'T do avionic, basic and advanced physic, aircraft flight model, radar simulation and anything else, its why people have adding soaring possibility with dynamic and thermal ascendance to FSX who can't do it in original version (the mission with the glider its totally scripted) or its why the VRS Superbug its totally nice cause its don't use FSX physic but its still use FSX graphics engine for rending, same thing for PDMG and FSX its not created for have two flight physic... We can use any graphic engine with DCS without loose simulation fidelity... @Sobek You don't see ? Compare that http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6/arma22010050221134009.jpg with that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Russian_Battle_Cruiser_Pyotr_Velikiy.gif (Arma 2 vs Real life) And compare that http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=213301Screen111108001508.jpg with that http://www.amodelworld.co.uk/images/hood.jpg I'm sorry but DCS look more like RC model than real life... I'm sure you use simulator since long time, and every aircraft simulator do the same thing finally, its why you don't see, but everyone who don't use simulator, new user and several like me who know since LOMAC but not more can see what i talk about... Same thing for 30000 feet who look like if we have giant eyes or if we are at only 1000 feet... The size and distance its everything but not accurate, its impossible to know any distance unlike other video game or video, object look small and altitude/distance look bad and its one of the multiple cause of the big power requirement.... Please don't told me that in the screenshot of the boat you don't see a size problem... Edit : Wow EtherealN its a really long post you have write, i will answer you i promise but not now and i'll back latter and i prefer take time for read (my English is not perfect)

@ Trident & EtherealN i have answer you here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1374712#post1374712 its better to talk about it in the good place. Note that i love learn new things i want to have a conversation and not a conflict, i want to learn new things, but i still sure that we can have really more than actually...

In answer to Trident http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1374172&postcount=40 And to EtherealN http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1374277&postcount=42 First its not because the map its giant that we need to show it full and show basic ground geometry with texture "optimized for long range only" its not hard and not ask big computer, Flight Simulator or X Plane have the full earth scenery and not need to show it full, just the area where whe are... Orbiter (space simulator) can with HD NASA's picture show every planet of the solar system but not need to show it in one time, just show the planet where we are... Show far horizon texture who are finally not in high resolution and where the atmospheric effect decrease what we see, its not hard to do it... 5 level of texture its needed for simulation. Far away horizon like 80km and more = Long range horizon texture 80 to 30Km = Long to medium range texture 30 Km to 6km = medium range texture (where every 3D object is finally "simulate" by texture with the SAME graphics render for avoid big difference during transition to ->) 6 km to 1km = low range texture (texture that we can see with 3D object, like forest ground under 3D tree (in a mix with 2D tree in the texture), road, grass and more) And 1km and less = HD close texture where we see with nice transition at 100m from texture to 3D grass and HD actual ground in DCS airbase for example... In DCS and every flight simulator we have the same problem, everything look small, we just have the impression to be a giant guy, we embody a camera with giant objective and not a little eyes with maximum 2cm of size (for the part with we can watch) and with this problem far away horizon in real life look like short range in DCS and other simulator, its why we need big computer power (if we forget the fact that its not optimized and maybe finally the opposite its done) cause for the same scenery we show more far away for 2 result = bad size/scale effect and more power needed... I know that show long range scenery need a minimum of power, but with correct various 3D and texture level its finally really not a problem and the view range of 3D OBJECT not need like Arma 2 to be more than 10Km... Little experience. Settings page : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=862779Screen120117050929Copie.png #1 Map view of Senaki airbase : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=313061Screen120117051346.jpg #2 Senaki from air at 10000 feet : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=528299Screen120117051410.jpg #3 Same camera position but look at Durgeria city : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=591273Screen120117051433.jpg #4 Durgeria from air at 10000 feet : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=518447Screen120117051630.jpg #5 Distance from Senaki to Durgeria with MAP view : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=248667Screen120117051710.jpg #6 From Durgeria to Senaki : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=455718Screen120117051728.jpg #7 View to ground from 30000 feet: http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=309286Screen120117051758.jpg #8 Same position and look at forest : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=398295Screen120117051807.jpg #9 Same position and look at sea : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=577672Screen120117051809.jpg #10 Now the last at the same position look at horizon : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=350302Screen120117051812.jpg Conclusion ? First the size, scale and distance in DCS are totally false, that look exactly like that http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/02/uk-electronics/shops/canon/2011/aplus/miniature_lg.jpg Its not a problem about we walk drive or other, its a problem due to low texture resolution made for be really far (and i will show after that its don't know anyways), poor scenery 3D object details and big camera object look like what a giant dinosaur or maybe a god see with giant eyes... Its a tweak for try to compensate large scenery... At 10000 feet that look like that in real life : Another example Compare with Screenshot #2 and #4, its just look like a little cutie RC model airport at 1000 feets Compare both video (and any other of aircraft at 10000 or yourself with real aircraft if you can) with Screenshot #3 For the same altitude in real life that look like if we are really more at high altitude and the same city (Durgeria) will look really more far away... And its really hard to see 3D object at this altitude, i talk about real life, the object can be in 3D or in 2D at 10000 feet (and at lower altitude too) its hard to make any difference... Simulator must try to do the same thing, exception for big object, every tree, building, house, vehicle and other 3D object don't need to be show at more than 5Km, cause at more than 5Km correct texture can without problems give the same final render and take really less performance. Look here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ Arma 2 can show 3D object with incredible density at 10Km, 30000 feet, 3 time more than DCS and for the same computer power need and not forget that its not optimized for aircraft, Arma 2 show interior of almost any house and really nice 3D tree with possibility to see tree bark and a lot of details that aircraft simulation don't need. Look how everything in the ground look beautiful, realistic, attractive and immersive, and ok we see tree spawn but in DCS too and unlike to DCS its not look bad a long distance, finally who need to see what happen at 80Km and more ? and like Arma 2 but optimized for aircraft simulation (with your 80km and more that you want so much) we can do the same thing, texture for long range, optimized object render at 5km for speed for Mach 5 maximum (and not mach 20 and more like DCS, its useless) and we don't need this level of ground complexity. About object spawn, why we see it spawn ? cause we see only ground texture above this object and the 3D object are not yet here, if for the same texture we including the picture (almost taking by screenshot) at the ground, when the 3D object will appear that will finally not will be visible or almost not. Screenshot #6 show how finally for the same range for 3D object its look bad and with bad range effect due to poor optimization, we can easily check, screenshot #5 show 4,7 nm and that give us 8.7044 km, yeah we see 3D object at 8 poor Km and that give the effect that we look at 1Km or maybe at 10m in a small scenery reproduction. Finally Screenshots #7 confirm the totally unrealistic range/level of details effect for 10km 30000 feet, look here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LAAzbf8mdc That need to give biggest range effect, and finally for the same range effect we will have better graphisms render for finally a realistic range effect... Look at screenshot #8, what happen ? we see a poor tentative to show "3D" tree who finally look really bad, like a poor pixel that we can't identified and only 2D texture ONLY will finally look better and will take less performances... And at Screenshot #9 we see the most ugly part of the simulator, first the distance effect is totally false and the texture (with maximum graphisms settings) are just HORRIBLE and i wait for someone who will try to told me that its not horrible... I prefer have a simulator with only 80Km of distance with nice graphisms render like Arma 2 than what i see in DCS just for adding a little more view distance who finally are useless with bad range estimation effect and where in real life with atmosphere effect its hard to see more... Look at the screenshot #10 and try to told me the distance of the mountain... You can't ? why ? a little estimation ? Its just impossible cause view distance are totally false and unrealistic... And look at this game The view distance look pretty awesome, realistic (compare with video or take real plane) and graphisms are really better than DCS 1000Km² yes its not giant compare to DCS but that still pretty good and nothing stop creator for extend the map with LOW RESOLUTION texture for long range, no one will see the difference and with low resolution (i insist to this point) the game don't will need extreme computer for work cause its not the size but the resolution the most important thing for texture. This game its not an aircraft simulation, the creator don't have see any benefit to create long range texture but its totally possible, like that : And this new simulator miss close distance texture...But for Medium and Long range its just PERFECT and its not need extreme power for work and finally cause its only 2D texture and that 3D object are missing for medium range that just look PERFECT ! Look here from 0:50 to 1:50 and try to told me that its not a correct view distance with correct size effect or that its better than my screenshots #9 and #10... A mix between the long/medium range of Aerofly FS and the close range of Arma 2 its TOTALLY POSSIBLE and that just will give simulator who need a little more power than actual for EXTREMLY NICE graphics render. Imagine to see the same render at short distance than Arma 2 (in every video and in the video with the A10) and just by extension with texture create and optimized for that the long range visual rending of Aerofly FS with optimization like not calculate full scenery + full dense fog like simulator do, just a big filter for simulate fog + close distance 3D "smoke" effect, optimized for maximum mach 5 and not unlimited and other optimization. I'm sorry but with good optimization and little downgrade of useless 3D details its totally possible to have the last thing i have described...

Create a full country with FPS graphic engine its not a problem, i have already see game with FPS graphics engine who have extremely big terrain close to reproduce a country, the only problem its the view distance and anyways with maximum graphics settings including distance (who don't really ask extremely more computer power than maximum graphics with minimum distance view setting, the fps number difference its not really big) i have do a test and 3D object in DCS don't be show beyond 30km...Low distance or low distance 30Km its useless finally (except for big building, tower and other) cause 2D texture can easily give exactly the same render, maybe better, Arma 2 can show 10Km without need more power than DCS and finally its just better cause the details are extremely more advanced and 10Km = 30000 ft and at this altitude 3D or 2D ground show no difference, after modeling the earth or a full galaxy with every planet with details and more don't will take more power...just more HDD space, full country or not, if we just decrease the 3D detail in any FPS we anyways will keep really nice graphics without need extreme computer, the only problem will maybe are the speed of the detail will appear in the map and anyways when we see FPS game with big distance where we can move the camera at extreme speed its possible without problem for any aircraft speed (including TR-3B :D) and optimized for aircraft speed its just will require less power... Don't forget that a lot of FPS show useless details for a sim like paper on the ground, interior of building (big building fully modeled with extreme detail) and more... And FPS graphic engine with big fog = not less fps number (sometime more) Any simulator with big fog = extremely low fps number, that lags so much... Why ? cause unlike nice FPS graphics engine simulator are optimized like my a.. and not matter if fog hide or not scenery, simulator will calculate FOG AND scenery and anyways maybe for a nice effect adding ad close distance (i talk about 10/10m maxi) show 3D fog its good but i don't know why simulator persist to show scenery + 3D fog (don't matter of the fog cover 100Km that will almost calculate it at 100% and not just calculate what we see... I just want to know where the power of my graphic card are sucked and anyways with graphic engine based on the CPU power and without multicore support i'm not sure that its good to ask it, its just not optimized and full of error... Anyways its not the thread but for every light/reflection effect its have NO difference against FPS and Simulation graphic engine... Light, color, sun and other reflection can be the same...finally the comparison its possible for color... We can with simulation graphic engine have the dynamic light that we find in every other games, but its create with the same politic that the other part of the graphic engine, its why its missing and its why color are not correct... If even the color will be corrected its not will be correct of other condition cause light effect are missing and at sunrise and sunset the color will not be correct too... And with poor detail we just can forget correct color cause a lot of thing who participate to color like nature color like that http://www.gunyah.com/data/dest_18/georgia-tours-travel-gunyah.jpg http://www.georgiamountainscabin.com/807f4770.jpg http://harmonoutdoorsinc.com/gallerypictures/Georgia.springmorn.jpg And i agree for a single picture its just a only little thing, but finally from the sky when a lot of flower/tree with flower are here its important and that will be sadly only implemented in simulation after 20 year. And in 20 year we will see graphic engine of simulator with the same graphic render than actual FPS games and with possibility to use it with computer that we have today but anyone still told me that its impossible like if that will never happen but finally things like that its already happen and will happen again... General landscape color its great but that will never be like real life without adding more rich terrain and landscape...

Sorry my English are not perfect and i need to learn a lot of world, i just include everything like dirt, dust, particle and other smoke and other thing when i talk about atmospheric density and anyways we never will have more than just clear or thick air in DCS... Sorry your picture don't work :/ But i see what you want mean but anyways picture are not finally the best comparison but color in the picture that i have give link in the first post of this thread show good color close to real life, and i have find picture of the Georgia in priority, anyways if the texture color are not perfect but close to this picture just will be really awesome, incredible, nice and immercive compare to actually... Its not simplistic, just see color like what we see when we go and look outside for a day (like today for me) without cloud at noon/afternoon will be nice and better than actual but for every other condition that just must be great and finally simplistic solution can work better than actually... Me too i don't care about modified effect not realistic just for good look, when i talk about "photorealistic graphisms" i just want say graphisms close to reality and with photos from internet if we correct the color after finally that can work too cause we just see several grass color, city (with same color everywhere) and if we forget airbase that's all, we have no diversity, just water... Until we change the graphic engine and we add a lot of details in the environment and more object, use picture (and check with eyes the difference between real life and texture created) for create new texture can work and will be better than actual and anyways what with graphisms like simulation we can do more ? Nothing, just nice global color...

Finally i don't care about photos, its just example, i just have to look through my windows for see house, forest and natural grass in nice mountain...Actually its winter and the grass are more green than DCS in summer :/ The picture that i post for example its exactly what i see in real life finally, or its close and have color like in this picture in DCS just will be perfect... Look here : Look how the color are just nice, the graphisms are really impressive and the global texture color change without any problems during the "time of day transition" I'm sure we can have a simulator with this level of graphisms, details, rich environment not matter what people way about view distance cause anyways its not correct in DCS well make better 3D object and rich environment for short range and texture only with 2D object and other things for medium/long range, with good landscape texture we never will see any difference against 2D and 3D object and that will look better in every cases than actual without more power requirement and with a little downgrade of the 3D object its just totally possible, and FPS = First person shooter, create for embody people with correct size and details level and not for embody a camera who will give us when we look at giant boot the impression to see a little plastic model, FPS graphic engine are just perfect for simulation too, not matter if we need to tweak it by replacing 3D object by the single 2D texture for long distance... but don't matter about graphisms render. About the color, its totally at 100% possible to see the same color, weather and light effect than this video... The color transition and other in this video will maybe for several people don't will be perfect, but its anyways 1000 times better than actual DCS light and color... And its just ONE example cause i can find a lot of game and 3D software where the color are correctly "simulated" I hope EDGE will no be create for show big object like little, no range estimation possibility by bad scale effect, poor environment, object without any correct 3D details with poor texture and bad light effect without any possibility to give us dynamics light, time transition and nice weather effect... The atmospheric, weather and other color effect that we have in other game (i talk about game with nice graphisms, not about simulation who always offer us bad graphisms and poor effect) its not perfect or same to real life at 100% but its still better than what we actually have in DCS and i think no body will ask more than that cause its wonderful, not perfectly identical but close to real life and give big immersion... No compromise are needed, just a good thing like other...

I have say i prefer correct realistic (and too immersive and nice to look) but only for standard condition (noon and no cloud) than actual color who are always false anyways for every condition, but yes its better to have correct for every condition too. And correct color its simple, look at grass, its green, look at forest, its brown, if only this 2 type of color will be correctly represented in DCS that will be better and nice... I want see color like that http://www.marennes-ulm.com/images/aeroclub.jpg Grass, forest/tree, road, earth and divert non natural thing in house area too and nice living area like house color variety and other missing thing like mountain color, grass and rock like that : http://www.geo.fr/var/geo/storage/images/voyages/guides-de-voyage/asie/georgie/107276-28-fre-FR/georgie_940x705.jpg http://www.clubaventure.fr/upload/georgie_01_cgtt.jpg http://www.gunyah.com/data/dest_18/georgia-tours-travel-gunyah.jpg And i want see ground with real grass http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/8630-1/Mi-25s.jpg This color its not hard to reproduce, put in into the good place for people like me who don't know modding for this sotfware its a wall but ED team must have to do it, and the most harder thing to do (i think) its to create correct color filter and if the filter for weather/atmospheric condition will be not correct its will be anyways better than actual color, more realistic and not a wall for people like me who need good graphisms for immersion... Its not hard to make green grass ! Its my vision of a realist color, anyways we never will have more details than actually, we just will get grass, forest, city and mountain/rock/earth, no more, well, ok why not but in this case its better to do this 4 things with correct color, for a sunny day if when we look at the texture and after we look through the windows and its not correct, its not a realistic color, if we look at the texture and at the windows and that the color match, its a realistic, correct and nice color, no more no less... For Camera i just want mean that the color are not be created by people look at the windows or take a light aircraft but people working with picture, and old Russian's camera show faded picture a little like graphisms in DCS and anyways its half a joke :D But yeah anyways a lot of picture is made with camera made in China or Taiwan For the video i talk about the sunrays yes its not exactly the thread but i think we can anyways talk about cause color are really based to the light condition and color can really be affected cause sunrays = shadows in ground and dense atmosphere (when the atmosphere are clear its hard to see sunrays) and a lot of place in the ground will be directly exposed to sunrays, other to shadow and other with diluted light by border of the cloud, ground color and too color in every texture depend of the light environment, and refection and other light effect like sunrays are important for color...

Its nice to talk about atmospheric condition hard to reproduce and other problem but i prefer anyways and its 100 times better to see simulator with correct and realistic color (for standard atmospherics condition) false for other condition than actual who are just extremely bad, bad to look and false in every condition with color who don't exist in real world and who are bad for immersion... Life its not a Russian's camera...the color its clearly inspired by Russian's camera color style what atmospheric condition we will meet ? Sunny day, cloudy day, very cloudy day, dense atmosphere (including rain, snow and fog), sunrise/sunset, little difference against morning noon afternoon and evening (before sunrise) and night... Other condition are rare. A simple color filter can simply give us a realistic, correct, nice and immersion color for this different condition and without that, just day/night that will be anyways better than actual if the default color are like in the screenshot with color correction from B25Mitch. Same thing for sky, cloud and (its the cause of cloud color problem) sun. The sun in DCS just look like bad little yellow think who give a poor yellow effect like a simple bulb (i talk about sun at noon, not at sunrise or sunset). I have just right now look at the sun and...i can't, in fact the sun just can't be directly watched, with the eyes almost close its still hard to watch during more than 5 seconds (who appear really long). I see big white light with extreme power impression, not a little poor yellow thing not hard or almost totally easy to look. SAME thing for sun glass (also missing in DCS), its just more easy...in fact its just less hard to look at the sun, and we see for other place where we look a black filter... For a simulator where we can do dogfight and where several weapon like ground AAA where the guy watch and not use radar, i think its important to really simulate effect on bot and more important its to give for every player this effect. Look here I wonder see the same thing if DCS And about light and color, where is the reflection effect ? Cause for me its missing but maybe some people will told me that i'm wrong and DCS have it, but for me no difference cause if its modeling, its just invisible, i hope with the new graphic engine we will have good reflection effect (with correct big white light and not a poor faded little white or yellow). This thing just must change and begin it now and start with ground texture and after light effect its a must have, anyways that must be one day, now or latter finally its better for us that ED do it now...

Same idea here : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=83992 !! Nice to see that i'm not the only one who want to see better color, realistic and better for immersion ! Yeah but its a big work to do that, every new patch will require to do it again, ED must have to correct their error its not to us to do that and what about people like me who don't know what exactly files i need to correct ? ED have software, data and access to more thing that the community can have... And its their job ! We pay them for that... Edit : The color of your editing screenshot are perfect and look just beautiful and perfect, i wonder have DCS with real and nice color like that !

Look at my idea here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=82457 :D

Or for military aircraft be boomer in tanker (anyways expect during refueling, that not require more work than passenger :megalol: ) or be radar controller on ground station, or tower control , mission control center or radar controller inside an AWACS ! People who will create big addons for simulate wind and heat effect for adding glider :D Or little aircraft like DR400, Piper Cub, Jodel and other light aircraft. Imagine how that can be great with the next DCS aircraft to do real interception mission of unidentified civil aircraft (or who don't answer at radio call) But not imagine all possibility with my idea here : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84001 That can be unlimited and still realistic (and finally be more realistic)

Look at my idea ! http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84001 Your idea is good, its a little part of my big idea in fact !

I agree but without advanced, realistic and immersive carrier ops its better to have the F-15E Strike Eagle than to the Hornet/Super Hornet finally...

Yeah but the only way to do that its to create like VRS a full independent software who just use FSX for world render and interaction, and anyways no one need to touch the flight model or the avionic cause its great the SDK can don't authorized the access to this part of the simulator. And if anyone will steal anything from DCS for use it for free or payware thing ED can attack them for copyright violation... And maybe the US army too and the people who are try to do that will regret and ED never will loose money finally... And VRS Superbug are really nice bug its not so realistic as the same level than DCS cause them don't have access to military data and ED work with military technical Advisor apparently for the conception of the KA-50 and the A10C... If any realistic aircraft will copy DCS that will be faster stopped i'm pretty sure :D

No really cause SDK and any tools don't give access to source code and every hardcore aircraft made by ED are create under military contract and no one will get the permission to copy that... Its a difference against create SDK and decide to lest the software become open source... :smilewink: No one have copy Flight Simulator X (and trust me, FS are really bad and really need to be changed) same thing for X-Plane and both have release SDK.

Maybe the military contract don't permit to ED to do that, but that give full set of SDK tools just will be great for business... Incredible number of possibility and a big number of new addons and flyable plane, community ask for new effect since long time, well with that we just can do it without wait, we can too help ED for several thing, we can obtain sometime incredible thing from good modders, and imagine if extremely realistic payware addon close to original DCS quality are create by PMDG or A2A, the VRS, the Ariane Design and other, ED will just winn money every times a new payware will be released, and more possibility we have, more new people can be interesting for buy ED's sim ! Little thing create by community, like contrail rectification (actual touch the engine, its unrealistic), new smoke effect, new possibility for weather, new options or function, visual improvement... Everything of that its just a little thing with minor importance one by one, but everything together its really different... Its like compare a car without options with a car with the maximum of options, if the price its the same people will buy car with more options...

About what i have see from Nevada Screenshoots the new engine will be great but i hope so hard that the Georgia will be updated too cause ED can maybe create new engine but do a copy/past of the Georgia map. The thing that i wait most is the Base Addon from GrandSurf and i wonder see everything identical in the new engine !!! Look that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSSrAMNwcXo Or that !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMxTQFTsI5w Ground crew (the GPU and the guy) will be nice !

No really cause in game "grass" (if its supposed to be a grass cause finally with color like that i don't know over what i flight...) in summer are more fade and grey than real life grass during winter... And the color (and every texture too) from the ground not need just a little but a big change anyway... And my 3 monitor show really nice color when i watch movie, picture, video and when i play other game, its not to ME to change that and anyways if ED see the problem and correct the color people who don't want can keep ancients texture. I not will get bad color from any other thing just cause ED team have take black and white picture of Georgia or any strange thing for create texture... Anyways a lof of things need to change, AI (cause actual are bad, stupid and bug every time) Bug problem 3D ground object New tree with realist and good 3D model and most important, the collision cause the KA-50 take advantage from the terrain and with ghost tree (where AI see through anyway) its just a big mistake with big consequences on the realism of the simulation... Multiplayer where we are always disconnected for...nothing And the list are so long, include (when i talk about color) no reflection (or so poor that we can't see it) and the really bad light effect from sun, cause when i take sun ray directly in my head i see a lot of color but not a little poor yellow, its a big and warm yellow for sunset and a big white effect for the rest of the journey... Like that : http://media.paperblog.fr/i/326/3264341/bienfaits-soleil-L-4.jpeg Or like that http://www.type911.org/jeux/pics/photo_970.jpg but stronger cause we have eyes and not camera in our head If that was only one thing to change, okey, but with this really big quantity to things need to be change its not the same thing. I just ask for realistic and nice color, i don't ask for orbit simulation with including anti satellite mission...