Demongornot

The TGP himself can see the laser, that's why he have a function to seek for laser pointer, but the sensor that look for IR laser is apparently not part of the optical feature that show image feedback to the pilot. So the TGP can see laser yes, but not the pilot cause the TGP can't directly show it since he look the pointer with another sensor than the one show on the MFCD. And as it have been point out, the visual sensor that give visual feedback probably operate at another frequency than the IR laser, the IR spectrum is way wider than the visual spectrum as you can see it here : And its hard for humans to realise that since human eyes can only see the limited visible spectrum and the human brain is accustom to this, its like trying to imagine 4 dimension's objects ! But this seam logic that the visual part of the TGP and the laser don't operate on the same frequency, imagine if rather than being able to see the target, your view was jammed by the laser in the middle of the screen ! And don't forget that in plus of the targeting laser the TGP also use another (I don't think he use the same) laser for measuring distance that's you also can't see ! Not sure about the following but... Night Vision probably don't really see the laser itself but probably sub frequency of it after he collide with the air particles and anyway we can't see a beam of light except if it is aim at us, we can only see its reflection on the gas/liquid he pass trough or the surface he reflect on. Since NVG are ultra sensitive they can probably pick a wide frequency over visible spectrum and pick sub frequency of the laser and what it cause to the air it pass trough, when air particles absorbs IR light photons they gain energy and probably emit light frequency that can be pick by the NVG in return... TGP himself is not that sensitive on a wide frequency band, he is made to have visible or thermal through IR and probably try to avoid being polluted by other IR frequency than thermal radiations, so he probably filter the laser in fact, active with a simple filter (software or special glass) or by having a sensor that is limited to a certain range, but this is only a theory.

I am really impatient to see DCS World 2.0 and EDGE but I can perfectly understand why they don't release it now even if bugs are expected for a Beta and even more for an Alpha... Now that I do myself computer programming, I don't really want to show unfinished software... And also, well they deal, like every game/software maker, with so much criticism (I've even myself on the past post tons of them on this forum, and some have even help to change things for the best and others persons have do the same, without those who push devs to do some things through criticism, a lot of game/software would have not include a lot of nice and game changing features, but some people are just doing free insults, others are unhappy peoples and don't say anything that can help etc) that well, even if this is supposed to be an Alpha release, this is comprehensible that they don't want to release not polished things for avoiding that ! It have happened often a lot with tons of game that a huge part of the community ask for quicker release then the other part complain about too much bug... That's why the official release date is "Soon™" because on the past many of us have ask for estimated release date, and since in computer programming it happen almost never that we are in time, a lot of yell about the fact that they was late...So when we ask for a estimated release date, they now simply say : "It will be release when it will be done." Also, mainly now with every popular game company that release FALSE Beta (which are NOT beta, just a demo you paid for, that is voluntary unpolished and release as this to make auto ads and money early on) that lets people believe that Beta = No bugs or almost none, almost finish, just few missing features/objects/map etc, it force them to push further their quality to not be blamed... So yeah, even if we all wish to have it now, they will prefer to wait until they have something correct, and also don't want to disappoint us from the thing we've waiting for years by releasing a version that is unplayable cause of huge game blocker bugs, DCS World 2.0 is supposed to be their master piece, it should be good as possible when released, even if it will be release as an Alpha... I'm sure the reason why they won't release sooner than they could is close to this...

Well, lets me guess, you use DCS in Windowed mode ? :D In fact, the Cargo Cam apparently only work on full-screen... That's for sure the reason why it does not work for all of you ! For example : I have 3 screens and only use the central/main one for DCS and this is sad cause windowed mode give me the ability to easily switch from DCS to anything else like writing during cruise flight, checking something on internet, even looking at some PDF for having the procedures or launching another instance of DCS in SP (main menu) to check keybinding etc (since ultil DCS 2.0 we will still have two split interfaces)... And having the borderless windowed mode is really useful, since DCS is not an FPS, mouse that goes out of the screen is not a problem, but well, sadly this issue force us to choose between convenient use or cargo cam... Their PIP system don't like at all the windowed mode apparently... I hope ED will fix that for DCS World 2.0 !

And it can't be fixed unless using Oculus Rift or other VR Glasses, and using zoom rather than a smart scaling to compensate the distant object over visual range in the game and in range in real life is NOT a good idea. But it don't mean that smart scaling is a good one... I agree that those people who unzoom and have this ultra ugly effect where everything is distorted how much this is way too much zoomed out : http://www.theoldergamers.com/images/screenshots/Screen_110311_185734.jpg Or this : http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9468/a10cnoeyefinity.jpg IS actually unrealistic and should never be done, in fact after the bad auto unzoom effect when enter a new aircraft cockpit, if we don't press enter on numpad to get normal view back, this is also way too zoomed out, people do this horrible thing just for having cockpit instrument on view when they have no TIR or are lazy to move their head to look down with TIR... Those can't complain about scaling issue... But yeah binders effect depend on your monitor setup, this one for example won't have big problems with scale : Zoom won't fix the scaling issue, zooming is a non natural thing that cause more trouble than it solve, for example those who never zoom have a disadvantage over those who always do, but zoom will always be here and non 1:1 scaling will also unless you use large screen to reduce this... It should NOT be consider as THE solution against ingame scaling issue And no, as i said, one of the main reason why scaling is false despite the FOV is ALSO because games use two tricks to reduce hardware load rather than more optimise the graphic engine to handle 1:1 scale for everything... The solution are to reduce the whole game size compare to real life, easy to see in game such as SimCity, The Sims or basically every RTS game. The other way is to use a larger virtual camera like DCS do, as i say DCS World virtual camera have an objective which is even bigger than the distance between two human eyes, even larger than the head... And this is ultra easy to check, take your camera and put it close as possible of any soldier's head, when you will pass trough, it WON'T even there fit all the screen, proof than what should be a regular sized head is smaller than the camera itself... Even taking from below, a DCS screenshot will still feel way under scale than a real picture from above... You think this is because you have in mind picture from bellow which are ALWAYS take from close, and yes this angle + the short distance make it feel bigger... In tons of screenshot, whatever the angle, DCS Always look smaller than game with first person view or real life. But now I give you a challenge, put an infantry on DCS on the edge of a roof, cliff or anything to take the screenshot from the same level as him, do the same screenshot in another game such as Arma 3 which still have a false scaling like every game but feel way less problematic, and do the same in real life, all 3 taken at the SAME distance, zoom or not, FOV or not, DCS will STILL look the smaller, perspective or not ! Because the camera use too big, and zooming only give the illusion that the lens get smaller and move back in the FOV cone, but its only the FOV that get close enough to fix better when the camera size, which still be false, if you multiply, divide, add or subtract a correct number by a incorrect one, whatever you do with the correct number, your equation will still be false... When playing game like Skyrim for example, I don't feel at all bad effect on scaling that brake my immersion, and I don't need any zoom, Zoom is NOT a valid option, you will of course be able to keep using it, but this is not the solution, and it is boring and ultra immersion killer to always zoom and unzoom for a lot of peoples... Scaling error in DCS will be fixed ONLY with a correct camera width, it won't appear at scale on screen with standard zoom level, but at least it will be already better, like what we see on Arma for example. I have already try to explain it on the past but my English was way too bad in plus of my dyslexia and everyone thought that I mean to use Arma's graphic engine while I was talking about his scaling level. Of course reducing camera size will mean more precise view and need to increase details, not on poly count since DCS already have tons of poly and will get even more under EDGE, but texture will need to fit, because details also participate to scaling effect trough optical process on the brain. This is why this EDGE's screenshot : http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=108560&d=1417708206 Which IS taken for a upper angle give better scale level than what we see on actual DCS cause of less details even while taking from a lower angle... Proof : DCS from Low angle : http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2012/12/full-848-47913-dcs_world_008.jpg Outerra from upper angle : http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hCjtXMCVNlk/UF76dPmGIaI/AAAAAAAAEHI/bxTVYwJYPFs/s1600/screen_1348401549.jpg And Outerra is not the best scale example but even here with disadvantage it still feel better. So yeah fixing the camera is the ONLY way to really fix the issue, after that, it depend on the user, some might want to use zoom as you, other might prefer to use video projector or VR glasses for those who can afford that, and others like me will have to deal with it even if it will be better ! The game by itself CAN'T do more...And zooming could not be imposed to everyone as THE solution, this is your one and you are happy with that so it is nice that you have find a solution about it, but not everyone will be happy with that... And in fact I agree with you about the fact that we should not touch the relative size of object, which mean no smart scaling where the object become bigger at longer range to compensate unnatural DCS's scale. The issue is that people mainly talk about it because we can't see far as real life on DCS, you are probably against it because it will create a lot of mess and well this is true, and people want it to see at longer range while you talking about the general scale rather than the distance, two different thing, a single misunderstanding argued in the middle... For most of the people scaling represent a distance issue while for you its an appearance one... My Sprite based idea fix both problems, you can still use the zoom to have your more realistic scale feel and won't have the messy auto scaling that will only cause trouble of clipping of two object close each others at long range and stuff like this like advantage for those who already use large screens, and my solution will permit to see with a ultra light hardware load way over actual ingame visual range for object and match IRL one without needing labels !

The argument of Sharpe are invalid, zoom are NOT a valid option to any scaling problem, human eyes DON'T zoom, and binocular are DIFFERENT from scaling, how funny will look a guy using binocular in the middle of a dogfight... The thing is that almost every game that include large map have a scaling issue simply cause of the fact that the camera NOT simulate human eyes size but a HUGE camera... That's why those DCS's infantry in this screenshot : http://b.pix.ge:81/f/49clq.jpg Feel like they are really small and look FAR to have realistic size like real person : http://www.kyivpost.com/media/images/2014/11/10/p196cp1lqp18821bct1hu11bn9p2s4/original_big.jpg This is why even the biggest type of vehicle (boat) look small, and this : http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2014/02/full-11236-73855-dcs_2014_02_09_20_45_37_06.jpg Look more like this : http://i1152.photobucket.com/albums/p483/RedArrows/HerschaaldekopievaneindfotosKent013.jpg Than like this : https://rnzngunners.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/fdrimpac27jun2012.jpg On the real picture we can feel the scale, and for the opposite reason that this picture of real F22 look like model aircraft : http://tgj4m-blkb.wikispaces.com/file/view/digitalphotography7.jpg/300274658 (look for Model Effect Photography on image search) DCS and almost every others game with HUGE map feel small, because most of the time the default zoom for two reason is not correct... First, because having a 1:1 compare to real life will give us a really limited view angle with our monitor except if we use huge 4k monitor and get way too close of it for the long term safety of our eyes, it will still be like this... And the second reasons, is because when huge worlds are used, for having better performance we simply reduce the general scaling, for example 1m in game will be the equivalent of 1Cm irl, which can help to reduce texture size and polygons count, which create this effect of everything looking like models and small thing and having no way near real life scale...And if on paper it should not cause issue since every object will have the same smaller size (no way for us to technically see it) it is perfectly visible... It can be done by two way, physically doing this with 3D model, or changing the camera size to act like a HUGE camera objective (scale of 3D object are still real life equivalent but the final rendering is not but we can still reduce polygon count and texture resolution and it will be unseen) like this is done in DCS, voluntarily or not I don't know... And both solution cause issue with object far away. There is also an optical illusion where things on monitors without 3D (Oculus or 3D glasses) will always feel small when on distance, because our brain see something far without having the 3D information of the distance and will interpret it as something small rather than far... Speed also give the same effect...This is why on Elite Dangerous, planet that have real scale compare to our irl one, feel really small rather than distant... But as you can see here : http://petapixel.com/2013/08/23/using-toys-and-forced-perspective-to-get-professional-low-budget-visual-effects/ We can make small object look at a realistic scale... And DCS have a mix of several problems... First one, the default camera view is base on a large virtual camera objective which is no way near the short human eyes one, even the distance between two human eyes is smaller than the virtual camera in DCS... Second problem (which we can't do anything about cause its hardware (screen) related) is the fact that the default view zoom is not equal at all on the human eyes's FOV When I was using Eyefinity with DCS, for an unknow reason with my 3 screens the FOV was adapted at a strange ratio between horizontal and vertical resolution which would almost look like a too much zoom but with 3 screen to extend the lateral FOV it was better and DCS started to look at scale ! Third problem, since the graphic engine is not magic, scale optimisation are done and they are perceptible on the screen and make thing feel even smaller... Also DCS leak some effect such as shiny surface reflection and others stuff like this that help in real life to extend the distance where we can both spot (shining stuff attract attention) and view (blinking shiny stuff will be spotable kilometres away even if they are small)... And also the distance where object are rendering is also a limit... So using zoom is NOT a correct solution... Smart scaling system where far object are still render trough the LOD system but using a single model (that could be simple sprite like old fashion game, it won't be noticeable with the small scale) that have ALWAYS the same size which is the minimum one and which have NO antialiasing apply to it, under a certain range it become transparent and over a certain range the lighter regular LOD could be used to spot it... Sprite base system will be relatively light on hardware and memory load, can be apply to basically every object, it just have to be angle related and without details (impossible to see if it point from or toward us like irl while looking at distant object where details are not perceptible but shape still) and that can be comparatively ultra bright (all white) or dark (all dark almost black) or its original colour base on some details that will make it simulating reflection, occultation or basic exposure to light. Can be apply to both aircraft and ground unit, and which could be zoom relative, zooming on it , AKA : if the closer range that zoom give still not enough to switch to the lower polygons LOD model...It should keep the SAME dimension on the screen, the zoom should ONLY have the effect to, while zooming if the range is encounter, make the object switch from sprite to first (lighter) LOD... Thousands of object can be show as sprite format on screen at once without impacting performance since few parameters are used : _Relative angle to us (camera) that will permit to choose the correct sprite to make the object appear on the correct orientation) _Relative position to us (the camera) to show it where it should be without having to render any 3D model _Which object it is (one sprite by object with colour being apply base on the texture used main colour, or one by texture, but they are small and have a single colour so their colour are easy to make from texture and their number won't be a data size issue and one by texture won't be long to make) _Basic light angle (only light powerful enough are taking in consideration for this such as sunlight, which in DCS only require a single angle calculation since there is a single main light source) to show base colour, occultation or shining aspect... Note that two possible optimisation are : White texture of aircraft should be fad and cold white to not be mixed with shining effect, partial shining should be implemented ! Partial shining can consist to a white dot on the middle of the object when he is at real colour. While on fire the object should tinkle from white to regular + dot texture ! And the second optimisation is the white dot in the middle to be also used at night for simulating any nav/anti collision or anything else kind of light on the aircraft, and disable it during white sprite to reduce even more the CPU load even if it just a true/false argument... And finally if the object is or not masked by anything (cloud/terrain, others object) to turn it on or off. So here I have give you for free a simple, ultra efficient, ultra performance friendly, mastered since dozen of years, easy to implement and easy to do (texture itself I mean) solution to being able to see distant object without problems related to scaling or rendering range which only consist to show a ultra simple image, and still visually realistic and won't be possible to make distinction between 3D rendered LOD and itself ! (In case some people think by intuition that sprite could look odd or something like this) ! Sprite base object on 3D environment are the one of the first thing ever done on computer with the first 3D environment game, and they are really efficient and performance friendly, sometime it can be nice to go back to old fashion techniques if done on a modern way ! And yes sorry I have again do a wall of text...But I hope this one will be useful !

75% of the time I have updated DCS, I did not want it to start itself afterwards indeed ! I have, yesterday after reading your answer update my DCS to the 1.2.16 just for both updating it and testing if it start or not, and well I did not want it to start indeed, only to update even if I also wanted to check, I mainly wanted to update the time I prepare my bed and go sleeping, not wait DCS to load his main menu only to close it...And it started ! And since anyway the updater always start DCS by itself...I simply directly use the updater as a main DCS shortcut, in the rare case where a patch was available before I start the game so I will directly update and play...And anyway even there the main DCS start for nothing since I almost only play on multiplayer... And with the actual split interface between main menu and game/multiplayer, starting the main DCS for playing online is also a pain, since the main menu close itself for opening the MP, when we play for long on the MP and just want to leave DCS because we have finish playing and sometime we want to shutdown our computer just after, for example if we leave cause we have something important to do, we have not see the time and we are late, or something that can't wait happen, or being ultra tired and want to go to sleep ASAP, this is ultra frustrating to having DCS main menu automatically comeback after we leave the MP... The Updater always auto start DCS, and it should ONLY be here to update, not to run the game...Or at least after an update ask if we want or not to launch DCS... And it depend, almost everytime, I update something like one week after the patch is release (Sometime I don't fly for long period) then while updating, sometimes, like this time, I have my maximum DL speed AKA 1.5/6 Mo/s, and sometime it simply goes down to 150Ko/s for no apparent reasons... This is not at all from me, if I test with any bandwidth speed test website, I get my maximum DL speed, if I launch something else meanwhile to check, I'll also get the maximum DL speed, I have a huge library of game on Steam and this is rare that I have a day without at least one update, most of the time this is 2 or 3 updates per day, sometimes even 5 to 7, and except on extremely rare occasions, it never DL at something else than the maximum DL speed, and as long as DCS have put the updater system, I have almost never get a full patch download at regular/maximum speed... And since at a certain period I was installing audio mods and that DCS always erase mods to download again every files, having more than 1Go at less than 150Ko/s is painful...

Not yet, not yet :music_whistling: That's why I'm not sure about why it block because I can't check it so I don't state that it is your fault, just that if a new one come, it will be nice if it is not seen as a false positive by AV like Bitdefender, maybe there is a network feature in the updater that actually match with a backdoor virus and make Bitdefender see it as a threat, idk, not yet learn how AV and their signature system work... But yeah I guess they should fix the false positive detection on this one...But I'm afraid that it will take a while for them to do it, like everytime we ask a big company to fix compatibility issue with smaller one, they throw it in the ultra long term pending list... But will it mean that we will get the others updater improvement from ED for 2.0 ? :megalol: Since 2.0 will probably require to reinstall DCS, a new different launcher won't be a problem I imagine (except the time it will, require to be done)...

Ho c'mon ! I was planning to switch to Bitdefender after my next formatting... Bitdefender (with Kaspersky) is the best available, between safety and game my choice is easy... I hope with DCS World 2.0 a new updater will come ! Anyway we NEED a new one ! NO MORE DCS auto start after update, we don't always update for play just after, in fact almost everytime I update its because I have free time where my bandwidth is not used by something else and i just updating for the next time I'll play, the autostart is more annoying than anything else... Better download speed, I can't use steam version cause of my KA-50 Upgrade (don't want to manually update it at every DCS update) and the actual updater is awfully slow ! Start with a decent speed then goes crazily slow for no reasons ! (won't be surprising if he fight against temps files that accumulate and are never dump or something like this) And one that will NOT be block by Bitdefender !

Simple way to verify if this is related to your computer or to DCS : Download and run a Benchmark software, Unigine Heaven and/or Valley for example, download Whocrashed it might catch why the computer crash and if possible make a test with MSI Kombustor ! (Don't worry it won't Kombust your GPU :lol: ) And also a CPU stress test ! I also recommend you to use MSI Afterburner or any others software that can permit you to manually set a curve for your GPU fan ! Because factory settings are made by dump guy (actually by smart guy that expect your GPU to have premature degradation cause of heat for you to buy a new card to get more money...) In EVERY actual graphic card, even those with huge dual or triple fans, you ALWAYS encounter the situation that your GPU is hot enough that the temperature safety will shut down your computer while your fan was at less than 80% in some conditions (most of the time it only overhead but not enough to shut down but your card don't like it) ! For my MSI 7970 Lightning Boost (GE) edition, i use this curve : 30°c = 40% fan (I have a hot room), 50°c = 50% fan, 80°c = 80% fan and 90°c = 100% fan For the 90°c well this is because my MSI 7970 Lightning is made out of military class components and made for high temperature and overclocking, so it don't fear to be at constantly 95° for long periods and since I don't play much actually... But for you, check the maximum temperature for your card and try to make a curve for being comfortably far from it without trying to be too cold (you will just get noise from fan but nothing more), you want your curve to be smooth enough to avoid your fan to have oscillation which they will not like and will be too agreeable to hear. And MSI have always less heat problems than Nvidia which are popular to have already made some GPU model (GTX 590 for example) that literally burn, so it may be a power supply issue like others say but the PSU is not always in fault when your computer restart, it might also be your GPU or even your CPU that overheat and the build it safety that catch to avoid your 200$ & 3,5 billions transistors GPU to become a beautiful SGM -> Smoke Generator Unit :lol: So don't trust the "factory limit" temperature, and it may be you that think that this is the card temperature limit but in fact your model is less forgiving !

I think this is because every aircraft that have its own forum in front page is developed directly by ED or by a third party in cooperation with them... Remember that the Mustang itself is part of the DCS WW2 pack with the Bf-109 the Fw-190 and the future Spitfire and P-47, all others aircraft are only third party even if ED probably help them at some point ! And with all the upcoming aircraft, it will be a huge mess if they get all in front page

Not too many threads announced the Tomcat :megalol:

About that cover ! For curious : http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/546827TomcatIFR.jpg With : http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-refprob-04xl.jpg Without : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/F-14_Tomcat_preparing_to_refuel.jpg @Jerkzilla Apparently yes ! http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-refprob-08l.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/F-14_Tomcat_VF-24.jpg http://www.spruebrothers.com/sbmimages/wpd48061.jpg I wish the Super Hornet will still be release by Coretex Design or someone else, i really want to see a buddy refuelling between the Super Hornet and the Tomcat :D http://blog-imgs-44.fc2.com/k/a/z/kaztima/AIR_F-18E_Refuels_F-14_lg.jpg

The story is short : It is a fake :D

Probably because you did not read :lol: Technically the name is self explanatory, every appendices that are on the leading edge are by description Leading Edge Extensions ! All the LEDs like you say such as the fixed slot, slats, Kruegers and Leading Edge Flaps are all extensions to the leading edge, aerodynamic extensions and this is logic that they can be call LEXs For the Leading Edge Root Extensions, well i think the name itself already explain everything, root or not, its a leading edge extension, and i think the problem come from here, people everywhere including in the professional world have probably start to call the LERX LEXs because it is shorter, we see this kind of problem everywhere, for example in computer, we should not say Bytes but Octets while talking about 8 bits, and not Megaoctets but Mebioctets which is the correct multiple of 2... And the LERX are structural extensions. For all the others apex like the dogtooth or the fences, well they are also on the leading edge and they are also extensions, so again it seam logic for me to call them LEXs The only exception is maybe the Vortex Generators since, even they are often see over the leading edge, the are not always at this place... But technically even if you strap a grandma on your leading edge, she will be referenced as Leading Edge Extension :D I think LEXs are the main name for all things, LEDs are a subcategory, LERX well it is its own category and the others things like dogtooth or fences, i don't know the real name of the category but they are probably Leading Edge Modifications... And well, i know that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, but look : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading-edge_extension The first image easily explain everything... I have no real reference about this but i think that technically this is the best way to name all this things...

Haha google never help, he have become so dump, and since people now type sentences rather than keyword (thanks to all new way too much simplified devices such as smartphone and people that don't understand computer and use it) the google search system don't work anymore... But you will find more luck if you look for "F-14 glove vanes" which is the real name of those canards ! This : And here in front of the sidewinder missiles : Edit : Congrats dekiplav you beat me :lol:

Canards disabled !!! Noooooooooooooooooooo !!! I want them :'( More seriously, i think it can be nice to have a pure tomcat, the A on its early variant, and the B in his last variant (the Bombcat apparently is what is planned for the A+/B) ! I think it will be better to offer a larger difference between the two beast and almost feel like we switch from the A10A to the A10C !

There is two different things : All things that are directly on the leading edge of the aircraft's wings, most of the time all the length of the wing, those can be slats, leading edge flaps and others methods, they are used to make the aircraft more resistant to stall and able to flight slower or at higher angle of attack ! And there is the leading edge root extension also know as the LERX which is probably what you talking about Hannibal ! But all those, leading edge flaps, slats and LERX are ALL call Leading Edge Extension which is the name of all aerodynamic structure (mobile or not) on the leading edge of the wing... This is probably why there is so much confusion here, probably because Leading Edge Extension and Leading Edge Root Extension have almost similar names ! __________________________________________________________________ For those who want explanations : The most encounter and popular one is the Slats, this is what we see on almost every aircraft, they can be both fix or mobile. Here is a popular variant that is mobile, they slip forward and the F-14 Tomcat have them : http://img.webme.com/pic/i/impossibletechnology/flap.jpg here on a airliner (easy to see) Here on the tomcat : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/US_Navy_040608-N-0382O-001_Aviation_Structural_Mechanic_Airman_Jason_Powers_and_Aviation_Structural_Mechanic_3rd_Class_Daniel_Johnson_conduct_final_checks_of_the_wings_and_flaps_of_an_F-14B_Tomcat.jpg (From above it can look like Leading Edge Flaps, but they are Leading Edge SLATS) And they are easy to find cause a lot of aircraft have them, here on a C-5 Galaxy : http://api.ning.com/files/ed7g22tBiTkmALoYqe1gPdYRwagfdSCihwBWtN4vIxzhibeFxNBxwg1wVc2FSSyjeDIjidIA94I8PqKfjyMJOf-yX3ZTJZ1j/osh2010m.jpg?width=721 And they are all automated ! I THINK (i'm not sure at all) with airliners and small aircraft supposed to flight "correctly and smoothly" they are commanded with the flaps handle and come in the same time, and fighters, since they will turn hard, they are commanded by the computer that will operate them base on angle of incidence (maybe base on the airflow and not on the trajectory for aircraft that can get the airflow direction information) and the speed, since their goal will be to make your aircraft turn harder without stalling ! Some can be manual but i think this is not common Some like the one of the Bf-109 (the most popular of the kind) are operated automatically by the air, a mix between pressure and depression will open them ! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Slat_of_Bf_109_G-6_2012-01-28.jpg We can also find the same system but static, they don't move and the angle of attack of the wing is what is important : http://www.supercub.com/images/recd/800x800/slatView.jpg They work like this : http://www.zenithair.com/stol/gif/slats.gif They are also call fixed slot and can be consider as different from the standard moving Slat. There is another type which is popular on the airliners, slats are not the only, there is also the Krueger Flaps (that are not Leading Edge Flaps) They are popular on huge aircraft, like the Boeing 747 for example, they are stuck on the lower part of the leading edge and deploy by pivoting forward, like this : http://cfile230.uf.daum.net/image/127D115A4DE245230E98C1 And they look like this : http://www.mikejamesmedia.com/modo_media/b747_8_Airframe_067.jpg Here a beautiful video that show it : On this 737 and we can see the mechanic for the leading edge Krueger and main flaps, beware of the volume ! Its loud ! Here on the 747 And this beautiful picture here : http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/7/3/1236376.jpg And there is the Leading Edge Flaps that are popular on modern fighters, in this design the whole front part of the leading edge goes down exactly like regular flaps. For the example on the F-16 it does like this : http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1920477&d=1379184723 Easily noticeable here : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/F16_SCANG_InFlight.jpg We can clearly see the leading edge is angled down ! And yes the Su-27 also have them :D http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IXrko2a8uwU/TxRghtFzCzI/AAAAAAAAAps/tJzknBkkhCQ/s1600/Su-27%2BFlanker%2BLong-Range%2BFighter%2BAircraft.jpg We can see them moving in DCS Easily spottable here too : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Sukhoi_Su-27UB_Belyakov.jpg All those are high lift device that help to reduce stall by lowering stall speed and augmenting stall incidence ! The Leading Edge Root Extension is different, this is something really easy to see on the F-18, the famous extension of the wing that come under the canopy ! Where the big vortices come from on the OP picture ! And a lot of aircraft including the Tomcat, but also the F-15, the F-16, the Su-27 and more have this ! The Space Shuttle is also a nice example ! And aircraft like the T-50 in plus of his Leading Edge Flaps have Leading Edge Root Extention Flaps :D And the Leading Edge extension also count others devices such as the Vortex Generator, this : http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/javelin/javelin_18.jpg Popollar on the Harrier, all those small tooth : http://aircraft-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gatwick-RAF-hawker-harrier-gr3-nose.jpg Also popular on the Hawk and T-45 cause easily seen from the cockpit ! They generate small vortex that help the the upper air layer to stick on the upper part of the wing ! There is also another family that is composed of things like... dogtooth leading edge, popular on fighters, also other design that we can see here : http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/vortex/devices.jpg More info of what they do here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_fence

The latest video from EDGE that we have is the Mig-15Bis trailer : There is bench of hard turns and we don't see any wing vapour... So sadly i think the answer is NO, we won't have them supported in DCS World 2.0, at least probably not in the first releases... A third party aircraft CAN have it regardless if DCS World 2.0 "support" (include) it because it is only a simple visual effect, and there was one year ago someone who was doing a mod for this and who have manage to successfully implement it, so yes it is possible even if ED don't do it by default... What i don't understand is why ED put the small and almost useless wingtips vortex and not this, after all even if it have to be adapted to each aircraft, it won't be SO long, just have to set the effect emitter at the leading edge of the wing exactly like the wingtips variant is the same for each aircrafts... Not entirely true ! There is not 2 or 3 but 5 different things ! First, you are right about the wingtips vortex, they are actually in the game, its the small vapour at the wingtips edge of our wings. Perfectly visible here in this F-15E : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/F-15_wingtip_vortices.jpg Second, well the vapour we see on the wing of most aircraft that experience high G turn or sometime only high AOA in high humidity (already saw several video of Hornet having this while on final approach for carrier landing, which is slow speed), yes those are not at all mach effect and are not vortex ! They are probably caused by a huge turbulence because of the stall of the upper air flow that mix with the non-stalled air against the upper wing (that's why they appear on high incidence and not only while the aircraft stall) Easily seen here on this Rafale : http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/30/article-0-0EFE8DC300000578-780_964x576.jpg Here seen from the Hornet while approaching on a carrier, end of the video : We can also notice wingtips vortex all time during this phase while wing vapour flickering, also various vapour during the flight itself. Also, there IS a vortex in the picture of the Hornet, the airflow that come from the leading edge extension just under the canopy create a huge vortex that is identical in the way he is created than the on from the wingtips, the Hornet is one of the rare aircraft that have this, his is technically not a wingtips vortex even if it work the same way. Easily seen here on this F/A-18C Hornet and we can easily see how the vapour turn inside the vortex : http://members.chello.nl/j.meijers3/F-18-Vapour.jpg Here in this F/A-18E Super Hornet video we can see the huge vortex that create the Hornet while turning, unlike the two previous one, he appear less easily on low speed/aoa (even if he can sometimes be seen on landing or at low lower speed if the weather is humid enough), but he need less humidity to be seen since this is a brutal vortex that cause this, look at 1:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb1W4O_IWZI And it look like it apparently disappear on too high AOA The Fourth is the famous mach cone effect that appear on aircraft near Mach 1 (not on supersonic but in transonic area because even flying at subsonic speed some aircraft have supersonic airflow around some part or subsonic around others while supersonic) Can be seen in this Tomcat video : Or in this picture : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/soupic/soubar2.jpg And finally the fifth, because there is another transonic vapour effect, it look like the one we see on wings when turning at high angle of attack (the second i talk about), but it only appear on transonic regime. Can be seen in this F-35 (yuck :D) https://i.imgur.com/kjR4gqm.jpg And in this Tomcat picture : http://i66.servimg.com/u/f66/12/26/75/01/f-14_t10.jpg Also in the video of the Transonic Tomcat we can see it in plus of the huge sonic cone around the aircraft ! Also note that the two first time i have talking about are easy to see in almost every aircraft, even airliner during landing have this ! http://video.airlineratings.com/140102Emirates777wakevortex_airratings.jpeg Notice how the "wingtips vortex" appear from the edge of the FLAPS and not from the edge of the wings, even without a winglets ! Yes even the Space Shuttle had this : http://images.gizmag.com/hero/space-shuttle-10.jpg All this are of course without forgetting the vapour that come out of the engines when at high enough altitude ! And yes it need humidity but NOT it don't need A LOT of humidity !!! Even if the middle of the desert of the Nevada they can still appear, PROOF here : Look at 2:25 and 2:45, yes is it not huge, but he don't take a huge turn neither ! So yes maybe their is clouds but it appear in the NEVADA which is a desert, and desert are know to be arid, mainly on the middle of the day ! So there is no "humidity" argument that can be valid against this ! Death Valley weather : http://traveltips.usatoday.com/weather-climate-death-valley-california-59328.html You will also notice pictures and video of aircraft that have vapour during the Red Flag exercise ! (will be hard to find picture of high G turn from Red Flag) Sometime its to dry but there is a lot of time we can still see it ! Sorry for the wall of text for well, correct explanation can't be shorter...

F-35...This aircraft don't even deserve to exist !

Because AG capability won't make him loose his AA performance if you use it with a full AA only payload, but it will give VARIETY and open way more possibility, that's why between fighter and multirole, peoples want multirole, some may not be able to buy several module, and they will prefer having multirole capable aircraft that will give them large experience rather than a limited one... Then if we have 2 tomcat, i don't see the bad in having a 100% fighter one + a Strike Fighter variant ! That's why people if they have the choice between for example F-18C and F-15C will prefer the Hornet for the variety of things he can do... Actually we don't have yet any high fidelity modern fighter, only one or attack aircraft, and everyone want fighter, but if we had fighters only (F-15C rather than the A-10C for example) it will be the same, peoples will want a ground attack, if we had the F-15E or the F/A-18C for example rather than the Hog, well almost everyone would have been happy... Variety, liberty, choice and possibility, key words ! No one will force you to use the ground attack side of the Bombcat ;)

"Yes, but it can be added in a patch later on." for me If they make a old variant of the F-14A and an upgraded one of the F-14B (the Bombcat) well since the Bombcat have more avionic and stuff to deal with, it could come after the A So yes i want it, but if the Tomcat A come first and the B in variant Bombcat come after, like both C-101 that come with a delay, well rather not delay the release of the A variant and lets them time to finish the work the the Bombcat after that !

Since the Tomcat/Bombcat are not retired, well i think we could get the chance to see the PGM deliver :D Nice to hear that Cobra want to make PGM compatible platform ! It will be nice to have the really old F-14A in plus of the upgraded F-14B Bombcat !

I hope we will also be able to reverse the roles, have for the first time a PROPER IA for flying the aircraft while we do the RIO (i'm sure a lot of options can be possible to communicate with the pilot), i don't always want to be the leader/pilot... But for the licensing idea i'm not sure that it will be done, Free RIO yes or only if you buy the Tomcat yes but it will cause too much trouble to make half i think

It is apparently no easy to find correct info about which Tomcat can do ground attack, but some Tomcat A, B and D have been upgraded to be able to perform basic ground attack mission and become a Strike Fighter ! I have find some info here : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14sf.htm So will we have a Tomcat and a Bombcat or two Tomcats ?

Ho yeah baby !!!! Hooo yeah !!! Incredible work on the 3D model, mainly that's early !!!