Demongornot

And Skepticism is back again... Damn, everyone with this kind of negative reaction do NOTHING except avoid a possible BIG and IMPORTANT update of the game, are you paid for defending the game and its actual feature/coding structure ? Anyways for answer : St3v3f : First yes its Off topic, its a simple example and i'm still having right. By your logic, my GPU card is 1,115 Ghz and memory is 1,5 ghz for a 3Go of internal memory, my graphic card have a single core... My CPU have 3,5 Ghz base frequency and up to 4 Ghz in turbo mode on 4 core 4×4 = 16 Ghz and my Memory (16Go) run at 1,6 Ghz. By your logic, my CPU are 10 time more powerful than my GPU and my memory for the same speed have easily in any condition (hard to fill 16 Go) more than 3Go available. And by your logic, i can be able to play any game maxed out without GPU (just using a GPU for connect screen). The example in my video its only for show that GPU its build FOR visual rending, you say yourself I have never say that GPU are more powerful than CPU for everything, i have just say, for everything about graphic/rendering and a main part around the game they are, and even for physic, like this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cnp97EaW68 real time, and i have already try it. I talk about CPU BASED game rather than (the logical thing) a GPU based game, example for old game like Red Alert, in this kind of game the only thing that your GPU do is work for you to see the scree, only the CPU use this game, bug its OK cause its a light game, but for a game like DCS World, its really bad, mainly when its under optimized and it don't take multicore (the famous winning duos). Maybe i have not give enough details of what i talking about but in the context i was clearly talking about rendering and graphic, maybe physic and ability with GPU Computing too, but not about replacing everything with GPU, don't get me wrong. But if we forget the game/rendering, physic and other side of what GPU are done for, i completely agree, CPU are way more powerful than GPU, but its not what i have say. Sobek I know what i talking about, my work is Inventor and its my job to having working idea and judge of the possibility of make it real, i never advance an idea without be sure that it can work. If you real carefully the end of my topic i have say. We can use an isolate application for AI and effect. Its not a big deal, FSX its a great example of this, a lot of programs, some create by company with a certain number of codders like Just Flight with Traffic X, and other that was made by amateur who create random or programmed traffic, and we don't talk about the own codder of the game but external codder without access to the source code, Even AI Carrier or Follow Me car is both good example of the possibility to use AI in a separate application. Its the same thing for effect, they are CPU based and it affect GPU, and i have a bug report about this (i will write it in the bug and problems part don't worry, but i will do some test and benchmark before for having more details about it) when explosion and smoke effect (from CBU 97 or any other bomb) are present, rather than use more power in my GPU and my CPU, both have a lower use at the same moment that i have performance drop, its the cause of the actual lag of everyone with smoke and other effect, and its cause it was CPU based. And we can, like the AI use an isolated application for effect. Its not the hardest thing to do and not the longest, and make run two different application in their own core its also not a big problem, and it can be a simple, costless and easy/fast to do solution that will make everyone happy, ED by having possibility to test and do a lot of thing in a separate core, customer by the possibility to having better performance and future feature etc etc. So yes i will all due respect for you too, i know what i talking about and i also know that units possible to make easily separate application for some stuff that know that it was not easy or fast to just make a "full blown" sim itself using several core, but for two "different" programs its not an issue and even anyone with the core affinity in the task manager can force any programs to run on any core the use want. Yes and no, everyone seem to think i talk about make the game itself running in 2 core + one for sound. It is TOTALLY NOT, why everyone is stuck with this idea ? I talk about making the game using separate apps for AI and effect. Two core rather than a single its two time the same power, a CPU core its physically a second processor put next to the first, its not like having 4 processor for quadcore but its like having 4 processor who using common thing, like the cache memory, and the same bus, a 4 ghz CPU if its a quadcore its 4×4 ghz total power. Effect consume way too much power, regardless the actual bug, it was since always in DCS/LOMAC/FC, use a separate app for this will change basically...Nothing, except that we will be able to same precious performance for the core who will run all the rest of the game part like physic, weather, aricraft and aircraft system, AI, map, ATC and way more feature. In EVERY computer who having performance issue in DCS the CPU is the bottleneck, the GPU is fine and its here only for compensate what CPU do, he basically do nothing else than try to help the CPU based software, effect eat a lot of resource, make it run in another apps wont change anything, but make this "external" apps using another core will help a lot of people, and by the way we can use this core for run AI and other feature i have describe, cause AI are actually horrible (the worst i have ever see, really) and using the power of is own core will be better cause it will finally be able to create a better one, cause it will be possible to assign more computer power to the AI and do something better than simplified script, and if all of this are coded correctly, when way too much effect will be present the only thing who will happen will be a low FPS drop and a weird visual things from effect but no more huge FPS drop who make everyone crash.

CPU Core number 3, what i talk about ? Everyone know that DCS only handle a single CPU core, its not really nice when we know that it was a CPU based game (like almost every aircraft sim) Actually sound use its own CPU core if one are available, and DCS will soon be only available for 64 bits computer, almost everyone have one, but almost everyone who using 64 bits system have a quadcore CPU, single and dual core its rare now. EDGE will be release, but not soon, i'm sure we have to wait more than a year for see this new terrain engine to be release. And we must don't have illusion, before a long time it will be full of bug and badly optimized, and it will work ONLY with Nevada map, a lot of people will still using Georgia for a lot of mission, even the campaign, and it will be for sure really badly optimized and will have lag for a lot of reason, mainly cause with new terrain engine ED will take the occasion to create more 3D object, mainly cause of Las Vegas. And for the time before it will be release and for free user or those who don't will be able to buy it before a long time, the Georgia will still CPU limited game, even with really huge CPU. The problem of CPU based game is that CPU power, even for the most powerful available today, it will still create FPS issue, cause CPU are not made for this and its why we have graphic card, and that's why the GPU computing is something that we see much more now, cause GPU can easily do what CPU lag for try and to finally not that's good, i know that DCS will never be GPU based, and the problem is that even with the best GPU card available we will still have no more FPS than what we will have with a 3 time less powerful one graphic card, demo here : CPU based its bad, mainly with its not optimized and when it can only take single core (even if the sound process use its own core but i don't get why when we hear it, but its another thread) Actually the simulator know a really big issue, a single explosion or smoke can make people lag so much that they will probably crash, its a little funny for something capable to show a lot of chimney smoke and the 1/3 size of the Georgia. Actually effect like smoke, explosion and things like this is a big issue, its not a simple little problem that almost no one have, its a big problem who completely affecting the software and the gameplay and that everyone have, a SINGLE CBU97 make me lag, and i have a really huge computer, like fly at low altitude make me lag cause of the dirt under the aircraft, the simple effect of dirt behind the aircraft drop my FPS from 90 in good condition to 10 FPS, even if i don't look at this dirt cloud and with mirrors disable. And the worst part of this was that the smoke effect look really bad (smoke effect including, smoke from explosion, fire, damage, dirt, smoke pod and contrail and any other smoke based effect). Like everyone know the AI are also not really the best of the world, with the ATC way too much simple and the bot who always collide and who have really bad combat action, its need to be improved, a lot...Mainly with multiple aircraft position available, no one will want to be the copilot of a bot who fly really bad... So why not using another CPU core for visual effect and AI ? (Message for people always say that everything its impossible) Don't told me that it was impossible, a lot of game/software use identical kind of thing and it work very well, and some software like this are created by codder with amateur skill level. (Message for people so septic that they don't believe in septic people end) Why ? First cause the game will soon handle 64 bits and its the perfect occasion to create this during this low level structural change. Also cause today people with single or dual core processor its rare and they will anyways don't be able to use the actual version of the game without having less than 5 FPS. The reason was that with its own core, effect wont cause problems anymore, it will totally and definitely fix the FPS issue for effect and a lot of things, cause everything (CPU based) who can be switch to a new CPU core will help a lot, and rather than make i don't know what change for the next patch for try to tweak the smoke, it will be a better idea cause it will permit to test a lot of things for the upcoming EDGE even it if will be different, it will provide better user support and alpha test support for the future, and open something new to customer can permit to find a lot of bug or door for optimization that tester and codder config wont reveal. I don't know what will be doing for the next patch who will maybe optimize smoke effect, but it will be like try to heat an house without door and windows by adding a lot of radiator and even make a fireplace in the middle of the lounge... Adding new core for effect can open new door for modders and permit to optimized and lets people change it, and it can also open door for Third Party codders, like in FSX aircraft like PMDG or VRS who using their own flight model independent of the game. And it will permit to having a better AI, actual are really bad, it collide on everything and rather than just avoid other aircraft they are attract by them, i have try to fly really close of a tanker (no standard flight, not in tanker active mode) really close to the wing, under and over, he don't react, seem logical, but i have cut off road just front of him and really close, he don't react and i have do it a lot, lightly over and under him, nothing happen, i have even touch him with my talk and nothing happen he just keep the trajectory and turn at the waypoint when needed (not a dead pilot issue). Soldier are really really really bad, no strategy, they just don't move and wait to be killed, they don't run when under fire, they just return fire, even unicellular creature show intelligence and survival skill. And the problem completely change the product and the simulation quality when combat is affected, create a simple mission with unit on the ground and use any A10C F15 F18 SU25 SU25T SU27 or any other aircraft you want in CAS task and lets them attack the unit with correct waypoint action setting. They will just fly ahead of the target, dive, fire, pull up slowly, do a big turn and take a trajectory who will make them strike 1 time per 2/5 minute, real A10C can do 3 gun run per minute in average attack profile, and they active fly trajectory permit to the pilot to avoid a lot of eventual AAA shoot... Or just formation fly, i remember in FC2, one of the first thing i have try with AI was formation flight, i was number 1 of 4 ship in close formation flight, 10 time closer than the closer possible for DCS actually, just after take off they rejoin formation and fly on my right, i was able to do loops, high G turn even minimum radius and they still be able to follow me at the same distance without problems except sometime that i do a roll, they don't roll with me and was lost. Now even on a big formation they are not able to keep correct position, try an escort flight with "follow" task in advanced waypoint action and set position for a close flight with your aircraft, lets the AI flight at your left, 20m at same altitude, turn slowly at the right, he will be lost and turn left, you have great chance to collide with him cause he will never turn before you are...far away... AI need they own core to be able to using more CPU power and be more smart (or stop to be brainless it fact), it can provide advanced AI action, realistic dogfight/detection/ground strike/navigation/escort/formation flight and other action with more advanced AI script and maybe their own application (some amateur modders in FSX have create external application fr bots, so the greater of the original software can do it too) it can permit to adding more complex flight model do AI, they do error that no pilot are stupid enough to do, and they never do error than real life pilot do like pull too hard on G and pass out or even stall or overspeed, no one can say that the sim don't need AI capable of pass out, stall or over G/overspeed their payload/aircraft, it was an IMPORTANT needed feature, if bot was not realistic, the simulator was not realistic and its not a simulator. Also AI AFM will be nice cause see AI able to land with a single landing gear available and don't crash, aircraft leveled, taxi, park and walk away to take a coffee rather than crash landing who can be important for some mission with script or trigger where landed safely unit will be repair ream and back to fight (just a trigger/script who make respawn the original aircraft when he park his aircraft) or just for give us the "kill" of the bandit down, after all its cause of us that he have low chance to survive on landing. Even the ATC who are actually really too simplified and who can't even correctly handle this by need 3h to answer a simple clear for start up/taxi and sometime just don't answer at all (with radio correctly turn on and frequency correctly setup). So a third CPU core will permit : _Fix most for the performance issue that customers actually have and provide better service. _Permit experience and test for future development. _Update the visual effect, adding new or just lets modders do it and officially integrate their work inside the simulator after this (everyone will be happy) _Update AI with better performance including : -New logic and strategy for global unit -Collision avoidance improved -Realistic ground attack profile with realistic timing (time its really important in simulation) -Dogfight/BVR and interception improvement -Realistic pilot error like over G, pass out, overspeed, crash cause of altitude or maneuver mistake, dogfight maneuver error -Advanced flight model who handle better damage with crash landing or AI try to land with a wing and half of other and who can stall/roll and crash -Formation flight/escort and follow task improved, maybe possibility follow pilot in close formation when loop or roll like aerobatic team -Better communication with AI with improved Datalink/JTRS use and better communication and realistic detection -Allow player to be wingman or any other in formation than the leader (like Falcon 4.0 the really old one can do) -More realistic and advanced aeronautic procedure/maneuver and action -Possibility to up to 12/16 or even more ship LFE (mainly with Nevada where a lot of Red Flag mission will be done) -More AI aircraft without big performance issue -More performance for route or formation following for ground and sea unit _Improved ATC capable of better navigation, collision avoidance, holding pattern, ground navigation, mission control center (in real wars we don't send unit and lets them just be completely independent by group, all aircraft are manage by mission control center, its an important thing) _Possibility to handle civil air traffic with rare helicopter and some aircraft like real life in training/light conflict situation and more performance for car traffic (and maybe Third party liner/civil aircraft). _Possibility to handle airport follow me car, ground crew (important with F/A-18C who will adding carrier OPS) with Marshaler (with action subtitle for those who don't know it, even FSX have a mods for this http://www.simflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Marshaller-signalling-I-have-arrived-at-my-parking-location.jpg ) and guy for aircraft control surface check and even with advanced animation (created by modders why not) weapon specialist, rearming/refueling and other ground crew people. _Optimize airport area (who make lag cause of the number of object, but take off and land its the most critical part of a standard flight, we must never lag at this part of the mission) And a lot of other possibility, i have just mentioning the most important and the must have one. A new core available will be one of the most important change ever after DCS World itself and before EDGE. This touch about performance, bug, realism and quality. And in a first time make new core exploitation available and export effect and AI inside will not be long and really hard to do. Every codder with basic knowledge about core use will totally agree with me, a lot of amateur can today create software available in multicore use and make things like effect and AI using other application than the game is clearly what some modders do for FSX, we (user) can manually force core affinity for the game for a core and the modder's software in another core. Its just an example but it was totally possible to do effect and AI in an isolated application and use this application in another core. So this is my wishlist, my wish is a small step from the codder side and a giant leap for simulator future and performance issue.

How can we use the EDM Plugins with 3Ds Max 2013 x64 ? I have try to installing the EDM Plugin but no support for the 2013 is available, even the version 2014 of the software its now available...And i can't check box (i have try cause maybe with luck the 2012 EDM plugin can work with the 2013 but nothing). Any solution or any future support ?

Really nice work Ricardo, like everytime, i wait the release of your A10C's cockpit ! I actually have the Hotas Warthog and the joystick is worn, i can send you some picture if you want, if that can help !

The true issue is the sound engine itself, it was maybe a nice sound engine, but with actual setting it was totally wrong... I have editing and explain why its finally not a good idea to just turn down the World sound level, and the post don't only talk about this, the part of the to loud sound its only the softest past of the problem... My video clearly show all the problems...

I have several things to say about the sound of DCS, i don't know if i have to post it here, in Bugs and Problems or in Wishlist part, so never mind. My first feedback about the sound (i have already talk about this several time) its the WAY TOO MUCH loud sound in external view or with canopy/door open, and it will probably boring a lot of people with the new UH-1H Huey. I know its a simulation and sound are louder with canopy open, but its not a reason for making customer become deaf, if we want to hear with a "normal" level all the sound when we are inside the cockpit, we must NEVER open canopy or use external view if we don't want to hear this way too much loud sound who are so loud that it can make your headphone vibrate and any HP crackle (even far from the max volume in DB that the HP can do, its just too loud compare to the windows volume that you have setting, even with windows/HP/headphone volume all the way down just enough for head the sound really quiet it still crackle, and i have try with my HiFi (HiFi mean really good quality) my G930 headphone, my Tritton AX Pro Plus headphone and my new Razer Tiamat 7.1 Headphone, if i say it its for clarifying the fact that it don't come from me, everyone i talk with and who play this game report the same thing. Even when i play with someone, in cockpit its perfect, and when i open canopy, when i spawn in my plane, or for some reason like formation flight training or anything else i use external view, i was totally UNABLE to hear my friend. We don't need to become deaf for having immersion. And why we can't just simply turn down the "World" sound volume in options ? Cause like i show it on my video, the sound are way too loud from close distance and way too noiseless from distance, i mean : If we lets high setting for World sound, we just have way too much sound for close distance but at least we can hear sound at an almost realistic range (and even with this, sound are too weak at distance, the sound attenuation are too much exaggerated). If we lower the setting for World sound, yes when the canopy is open or in external view we don't become deaf (and it depend, cause some way too much loud sound still present like my video show it) but the distance already too short of sound distance with normal sound become ridiculously too short that we can't hear a fighter aircraft at 500m/1Km depending of the setting. When walk at the night far from city and car noise, you can clearly hear when an aircraft like a liner is flying 10Km over you, and fighter are louder than liner, liner are really loud for take off at max power. The second problem is with the Doppler effect, DCS use a CPU core only for the sound if one is available, so why with the incredible power of a CPU core capable to handing up to 4 000 000 000 operation (bits) per second for the fastest one like my 4Ghz CPU the sound still completely wrong ? Seriously, just take any plane, like the F-15 and up to cruise speed, press F3 and firing gun during the flyby, the sound its ridiculously too highly pitched during the approach and way too much low pitched when the aircraft fly away, and this problem is the same since a LLLOOOOOOOT of time now... Don't told me that a correct sound Doppler effect its hard to do, the sound only handle Doppler effect with high and low pitch relative to the speed (completely wrong) the sound attenuation with the distance (also wrong) and the speed propagation with the famous dead sound area over mach one (both of speed and no sound area seem correct and realistic...Or not, you will see why in my video) The sound not even have to manage resonance, echo, reverberation, attenuation with object and propagation from complex surface (form and sound modulation). So how with a sound engine using its own CPU core and with only the 3 minimum, basic and most simple thing that the sound do, 2 of them for 3 total can be wrong ? And in fact its 2.5 cause the supersonic sound its not really realistic for a lot of reasons. Now just watch this video : Its someone who have done a mod sound for the game Arma 2, this sound mod handle echo, reverberation and sound propagation, its only a mods do by an amateur over a game who already have its own sound engine, and its way more complex, realistic and better than DCS sound engine. The doppler effect, the sound attenuation with the distance and the sound speed is completely correct in Arma 2 and this mods just make the sound reach a level that DCS will probably never dream of. Just watch my video and you will understand, i have change some sound files, it make the external view sound less loud but the problem still the same for all aspect with or without sound mods. My video link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f45GUZE4cD8 And the last problems of the sound in the simulator was the sound structure. The game is already messy for all the files who prevent any low experience modders to do anything for this sim (who really need a lot of mods). First : a lot of sound present in the sound folder is just not using by the game, best example : the supersonic sound, i have try to change the "SonicBoom.wav" file with a really great one i have sample, but now the sonic boom sound its just a bad mixed and over loud version of the aircraft itself, it was way too loud in short distance, and at 8 Km its already gone, but the supersonic boom its definitely not create by engine, everything with or without engine who just pass over the speed of the sound create a shock wave, its what created the sonic boom and the sonic boom sound its relative to the speed and the size of the object, the shape don't really change the sound of the shock wave a bullet, a rocket, an asteroid (like the one falling in Russia that we can clearly hear the very loud sonic boom) and the space shuttle who just gliding without engine create a supersonic boom. A correct setting will be 3 or maybe 4 SonicBoom sound files and certainly not a sound just created by doing a strange thing with the aircraft engine sound. The worst side if this was that rather than simply have a bad supersonic sound, we have a bad supersonic sound that we can't change. And that's the worst part of the sound problem, cause now we have sound who simply don't work like the 30mm gun impact sound and other who was replace by thing who just make worst effect, i wonder see the simulator become greater and greater and certainly now degenerate and have a lot of new limitation. I hope you will change the sound engine soon or even give us the possibility to optimize it ourselves like we can do in Arma 2 for example. I'm really happy to see that you change things and try to improve all the side of DCS World, but its totally not necessary if it limited people, do things less correct than before and don't give the possibility to change it.

+1 it will be nice, mainly for AI !

Its a nice idea but it still having two problems. First, i'm sure he ask it for aving an axis and have precision with the brake, not just for using his feet. And 2, using a software for setting a key for toe brake axis its nice, until we have FC3 and A10C or more important even, P51D (that can't be operate correctly without brake axis) Its like airbrake, at least having key for open and close it how we want, but axis its really missing. Anyways i have already talk about it here : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104020

@agentkgb Like Exorcet say : Weather isn't a civil aviation issue, it's an aviation issue. And its MAINLY a military issue in fact, a 737 in IRF at FL300 don't care about cloud, military do ! visual is important and in both side. An F-15 can be completely surprise if he just flying over cloud if a SU-27/33 or a Mig-29 flying inside high altitude cloud approach him at 6 radar off and IR sensor ON. Or if a high altitude military aircraft are just shooting by a SAM, the cloud can do the difference between the life and the death cause cloud prevent pilot to see the missile smoke at high altitude for some cloud at 10Km and he will need to only watch his RWR/RPO until the missile some hundred feet under. Don't think when i complain i don't know what i talk about, i have reflect about this since a lot of time, and i have already use this cloud approach with optical/IR sensor of the SU33 for shoot down some AI F15 who have never notice my presence until i shoot them in short range with medium range fatal Russian IR missile who can kill easily in short range. And the "just introduced" system have something like one year now, i don't complain about the weather fidelity or the realism, just the completly lack of option and possibility and like Exorcet say again, the its confusing. I have already explain why, so maybe i whining, but you actually do the same. I know DCS is not FSX, but FSX still have a way more better and REALISTIC weather system, and DCS, FSX, civilian or military doesn't matter when we talk about realism, you can have the most realistic and advanced simulator of the world capable to handle even turbulence from an insect applied to the aircraft flight, it will still a unrealistic simulator if you don't correctly handle weather, things like prop engine ice problems or control surface who can freeze its not a problem of military or civil, its a problem of fidelity and realism. Its like our actual pilot don't care about pressure or temperature (only about oxygen that he breath) and you can say for 200 year and argument how you want that pilot can have hypoxia and "G simulation" (that just make us have a cadet pilot unable to resist high G like real pilot actually do), it still be unrealistic for pilot simulation, and an aircraft simulation its definitely NOT realistic without correct pilot and environment simulation. The only simulator who don't need to simulate atmospherics situation is maybe train, submarine (only when he is not surfacing, and he still having to simulate the sea condition for being realistic) or even an underground machine. Even a car simulation have to simulate humidity, wind and temperature if it want to be correct, maybe only at ground level, but it still have to do it. So yes i complain and sarcasm about weather system of DCS cause i know since the time what happen and i'm sure if no one complain and talk about it, the final version of the dynamic weather will still having almost no option, no possibility, it will probably be realistic, but it will still have a comprehensible interface. Anyways for me Flight simulator is not realistic for plane side, but a least it still having realistic weather (capable to using real life weather data) and realistic ATC. http://www.avweb.com/news/avtraining/flight_simulator_x_for_pilots-chapter_13-weather_196384-1.html http://www.avweb.com/newspics/196384_fsx_chap-13_fig_07.jpg No one talk about a realistic simulation of global weather, just something correct capable to REALLY be comprehensible and who don't need to always make 200 conversion for finally have random things that will be probably far from what we want, if you success in the FIRST TRY with the Dynamic weather to make a Thunderstorm i'll give you a cookie. And i prefer have complex Standard weather system like FSX (who anyway handle dynamic) than a Dynamic one with no option, no possibility, terrible interface and totally random. An aircraft simulation without correct weather simulation who don't give us any choice its like a car race simulation without tires simulation where we can't parameter anything about wheels. And at lease FSX (even if it was created by Microsoft) give to people the possibility to doing mods (and i don't talk about payware and other third party) and even some weather mods are available. Anyways i don't want to debate anymore about this, it wont change the fact that the weather is not realistic in DCS and it will probably never be WIP or not.

Its not a problem of finish or understand, the problem is that the weather, the simple or the dynamic are both way too much simplified. Standard : Season and temperature, its the minimum of the minimum, we can't choose the temp relative to the altitude. Completely simplified single layer of cloud, and the cloud are way too flat (i have already talk about this) and no other cloud than this single layer are allowed, precipitation, it miss things like hail, freezing rain, melted snow, i least at 0°c we have rain, thunderstorm, snow, snowstorm, but nothing else and its only at 0°c, NO even little forgiveness, not 1 not -1, only 0°c and that's all. The pressure is in mm of mercury, the US aircraft use inch of mercury, the famous 760 vs 2992, its nice for Russia, but for those who NEVER use or even hear of mmHg (Torr) its stupid, a lot of aircraft in the world use the 2992 version, same for altitude of the "single" cloud layer, a lot of people use feet and not meters, a system who show both is needed. For the wind we have 3 different (begin to be nice with several possibility) layer with predefined altitude (yes, why people don't just understand that customer want CHOICE and certainly not want restriction) with direction that we don't know of the wing come from or to this direction and a single Turbulence setting, yes 3 wind layer and a single turbulance setting, INCREDIBLY realistic waw... How and we also have a fog, for those who don't know yet, for its supposed to be a cloud at low altitude above the ground lvl. And Dynamic ? Its "simple" (yeah we can say it) : Season and single layer of temperature... Baric system with Cyclone and Anticyclone, we can choose the number that we want of them but we can't choose a cyclone and an anticyclone in the same time.... Yeah i don't want to live inside a country who only have cyclone or anticyclone but everyone its free to choose the suicide... We can up to 6 cyclone or 6 anticyclone, yeah its a pretty nice apocalypse, every weather specialist who ever hear about DCS Weather must laugh so hard... Do ED guy recently look the weather at the TV or internet ? for example in my country : France, we have ALWAYS an Anticyclone who prevent us against...cyclone, and a lot of time anticyclone and cyclone fight each other, they are in the SAME country in the SAME time. MAYBE Georgia have a particular system who permit only cyclone or anticyclone at the time, i don't know the Georgia, but i don't think so, and even if its possible, why just restrict the player to using only it ? cause THEY have choosing to do ONLY a SINGLE map, i prefer have a fictional planet but fully available, like in FSX/X Plane (they both have the real planet) than a single country. And anyways if we change totally the map and we don't importing all characteristic but recreate it, the DCS weather system won't change from the first to the second map cause its unrealistic. But maybe its cause we can choose negative pressure anticyclone and positive pressure cyclone... Yeah... that right, i don't know how work the weather system in their planet but on earth negative pressure baric system is called cyclone and if it grow in pressure over the 101325 standard Pa it will become an anticyclone, don't forget that we can't even move the center of any of this system, even the main and first one. How i have forget we have the pressure deviation, everyone talk in Hpa and know 1013, and they just decide to complicated one more time what we want, and over that rather than write : 101325 or 1013.25 they just write the 4 last number for totally lost people who don't understand weather, and we can notice that they just decide to finish the job of torture by first choosing in the Standard weather mmHg and in the Dynamic just decide to using Pa without any system for converting for those who want it or who NEED it. Its not complicated to do a slider system who show SEVERAL irreverent value, like USA type QNH, Russian type QNH and in Pa. We can't choose the cloud, the rain, the snow, the humidity, NOTHING, if we don't want a mission who can during 3 year without any weather change, we are forced to use the dynamic system who are COMPLETELY random and WITHOUT any indication of what it will be at the mission start and without any possibility to choose the type of weather we want at the begin. But we still able to choose turbulence and fog, it must be funny a dry air without wind with fog and turbulence on it... Yes i know i have done a lot of sarcasm, and if it look like i don't respect the weather system in DCS its cause i'm. I will respect this bad weather system when it will become complex and with POSSIBILITY like we see in FSX for example. Actually the Dynamic weather need to be meteorologist, but real meteorologist will laugh by watching it. Anyways we can't do bad things and wait for people to respecting it, no one can blame me for this, i respect ED team, u just don't respect some bad part of the software, and blaming me for this its like blaming someone who disrespect the use of nuclear weapon against innocent people, its the same way. Anyways i hope a new weather will one day be available, something like the FSX one, with or without real world weather data downloading...

Its sure it was modeled ! Look at : Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Sounds\Effects\Aircrafts\Uh-1H You will find MastBumping.wav PreMastBumping1.wav and PreMastBumping2.wav :)

Some people told to use trigger for taxiway over a certain speed, just do it, make both engine damage (like if you suck things in your engine) over a certain speed on the taxiway, not too low cause some people taxi really fast but don't manage to take off from the taxiway, its better than an unrealistic random explosion and it don't leave wreckage. The guy just loose both engine and was totally unable to repair, he have to take another plane and a message show why engine are broken during taxiway excess speed/attempt to take off. But don't set area around an airfield, some people like to fligh by over parking and i don't see any problem of doing this (real life pilot do it) and other need experience and easily leave the runway axis during take off or some other prefer turning just when they have leaving the ground cause they can control plane at low speed.

Yes, i have to, all the night i have done some BVR training and the missile are pretty bad and stupid... BVR missing with the new patch now have less range than short range IR missile of real life... So i have to add some things to my list. First i excuse myself to Eagle Dynamics cause i have told they have delete the pilot body but i have just notice yesterday that it was in fact back and with nice texture. The rest of my wishlist : BVR Missing need to be TOTALLY reworked. Yesterday i doing some interception training with a friend (F-15 vs Mig-29, PvAI), and even with collision course at 12 my AIM-120B can't reach the target at 10Nm and we where somewhere between 10000 and 25000 feet (we do this mission a lot of time and the bandit altitude don't stop to change), same for my AIM-7 Sparrow unable to shot running target at 5Nm (i have a little bit more speed than him and the radar totally confirm that he was at range, he just escape to my missile with a SLOOWWWW and regular turn... IRL : AIM-9 Sidewinder (with AIM-9 AIM-7 and AIM-120 it was the missile with the shortest range i have ever see) have between, 10 to 18 Nm of range depending of the altitude, it mean real life short range missile AIM-9 have two time (at the worst condition possible) the range of the long range missile inside the game at a good altitude condition... Real life AMRAAM have over 20 Nm range and Sparrow somewhere around 30 Nm So please ED tweak the missile and give them REALISTIC performance between range, maneuverability, speed and speed/inertia consummation. Anyways the ridiculously high AOA of the missile proof that the missile are completely wrong, i have never see real life missile in any video with an AOA that high.... And also, the aircraft performance need to be tweak. The F-15 for example This aircraft is capable of mach 1.2 at sea level and mach 2.5 at high altitude, sorry but i have never reach Mach 2 with any aircraft in DCS/FC, even in a big dive, the Machmeter don't lie, he is not depending of the altitude and was always correct, so its not a problem of speed depending of the altitude cause the machmeter work depending of the altitude and give the speed relative to the sound and not the dynamic airspeed. The ceiling altitude of the Eagle C/D is 65000 feet and 60000 feet for the strike eagle, and except in ballistic flight i have NEVER reach this altitude, its IMPOSSIBLE to be stable at this altitude in FC3, even the F-15 Streak Eagle (designed for climb speed record) reach 100000 feet in 208 seconds. Speed and max altitude of FC3 aircraft REALLY need to be improved, also the control itself, Russian aircraft can't do the Pugatchev cobra and a problem was encounter in max speed (only possible to reach it in a big dive, and we still far away from the max speed of the real aircraft at level flight) in F-15 (for example) when we reach the max speed the control of ailerons are inverted ! I'm sure its cause they decrease with the speed and rather than stay somewhere close to 0 they just fall over zero and become negative. So Flaming Cliff aircraft have a REAL and a BIG problem who need to be fixed. I also noticed that the damage was a lot of time exaggerated for light impact, when two aircraft just TOUCH each other, on the ground or in formation, MAINLY if we touch softly, the aircraft will NOT loose a wing or the tail, same for SOFT ground contact, every time for example a KA-50 slowly touch an F-15 or any other aircraft, this aircraft completely loose a part of itself. Look at this video and notice than Civil aircraft are not stronger as the Military was cause they don't have to resist to missile and bullet impact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSUL46Jdudw the A380 aircraft at a certain speed (clearly way more faster than a almost 0 speed gently touch in DCS) the wing and the tail of both aircraft was NOT rip out. Same here : both aircraft was damaged but its far to be like DCS aircraft are, at the same speed in DCS rather than loose a wing we probably will explode. This one not explode or loose a wing : http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/809/1135488141238f16ks1.jpg The aircraft are way stronger than they are in DCS, they don't fall in piece just cause we gently touch something. And another things important, control surface is correctly responding to the joystick at middle/max course, but like every simulator it was too much responding at low travel. Its not only DCS, its all simulator, i know we have the curve, but it just mitigate the problem and in the middle course of the joystick we have an area with bad precision. Do you even play FSX ? if yes you have probably notice how ridiculously sensible are the control even with correct TRIM for any aircraft including airliner. Now look at this video : Or this one He is definitely not moving of some millimeters the joystick. Before they break, look at how the elevator of the Blue Angle's F-18 moving Its way too much than what we see in simulator, and if they don't always move they elevator like this its just cause a lot of time they reach correct trajectory and don't need to compensate a lot, but it don't change that at low angle elevators in DCS like other simulator are too much effective, and even with a curve on joystick setting we can notice it and its not nice... Also, axis for airbrake of FC3 aircraft or even possibility to use ON/OFF option AND open/close, like it is for the A10C, cause we can control the position of the airbrake in real aircraft, its not just ON/OFF. And a lot of people experience LOW FPS or huge FPS Drop without any crash/smoke/explosion, the sim still really need to be tweaked. Edit : Sorry i have forget about the Tanker. Actually its hard to refuel with F-15 and Russian aircraft, why ? First cause the boomer was an idiot and never correctly put his boom on our...aircraft. With the F-15 its really hard cause we have no indication, we can't just look at the boom, the boomer was an idiot and connect only when he must not and the boomer don't give us any indication if we are too low too high forward backward left or right, we have indication under the tanker but they are not accurate, they are hard to see and we miss boomer voice. For Russian aircraft the pipe was totally not realistic, and if the next DCS aircraft was the F/A-18C its really need to be change, and the problem with Russian Aircraft its that we have NO indication of we are too far or too close, if we are too close it will magically disconnect, if we are too far it will disconnect too (logical) but we have no visual information and no boomer who told us if we are too close or too far, and its stupid cause we see his station in re back of the aircraft... Now talk about the interface. First can you please adding possibility to the encyclopedia, possibility to handle video/animated gif of several page for any item, a lot of people including myself are ready to create more complete encyclopedia with more information and characteristic, but the actual encyclopedia are too simple for this. The best will be to upgrade it with possibility to see 3D model with skin, possibility to see video and/or animated gif and several sub page/sub tabs for the same thing and the possibility for us to add more main tabs/page, like AG weapon in one side and AA weapon in another page/tab, imagine how more useful it will be if we can see for the same kind of rocket launcher the different type of rocket it can carry, the use and things like this. Page with payload possible for all aircraft, what is good for, strategy in dogfight against him, cruise speed/altitude and other info like this, and the 3D viewer will finally solve the problem of the skin that we never know what it will be and no one want to remember ALL skin of ALL aircraft. We also need the possibility to see a simple image and description of the weapon when we just pass the cursor over, a little like in the main page the info bubble, just show a simple image and some info like Anti tank/anti personnel, training, range, weight, if we need laser and other basic info like this, and a lot of people will appreciate it cause how many time we just try to set a nice payload and finally just put some training weapon and just look stupid in front of the enemy... Also the possibility to see the weight balance for asymmetrical payload will be really useful. What about an ATC who really make us take off FRONT of the wind ? Like i said before, better ATC, but don't forget option for ask emergency landing and option for ask weather like wind dirrection, turbulance and QFE Possibility to choose our skin for multiplayer with a list of authorized skim per aircraft/airport Possibility to set wingman as client/player And what about a mission control center ? Actually long range ground radar station are useless for fighter, we have no one who give us the permission to engage or refuse it. We really need control center like moving one like the E4 Doomsday Plane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4 Or carrier or any ground base where information from AWACS, boat/ground radar and reconnaissance/spy mission will converging, like real life, we don't send a spy aircraft just for send it but we send it for obtain information that we can evaluate or transmit in unit already in the area, same for long range surveillance radar, we don't put it on the ground just for give to the enemy a target to destroy, we put it on the ground for watch the sky and help fighter. For example look at this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKDjwcH3aHg maybe it look more like a movie than a real training but it a Swiss training, its just arranged to look better. But the best example of mission control center was the Red Flag where every aircraft are follow. We need it, it will make useful the ground radar and sky mission. Another Edit : Possibility to scroll the chat in NP and have a windows identical to the chat for radio and other game message, also scrollable. Again another edit : Possibility to have advanced action with ground crew like connection hydraulic pressure system and other ground element like we see in A2A P51D. Possibility to choosing pilot weight, possibility to choosing which tank we want to fill, like the wing one, fuselage one etc.

1.2.4 mean release of the Huey's beta, so i think a date will be given before it was release, and this patch will be maybe a huge one compare to other actually release, and i think FC3 will be the final version. It mean that the patch 1.2.4 will add a lot of feature, new Third Party compatibility, multiple aircraft position, new feature for multiplayer (even if now its stable, and congratulation ED for the nice work with the Multiplayer completely stable now, we don't see aircraft teleporting anymore cause of packet loss), it will also adding some feature for the next project of ED even if it don't will be release before some month and maybe a final game's structure modification... Anyways the patch 1.2.4 will be a huge one, it require a lot of work from ED, a lot of time for do it and test it and i don't think it will be release that soon, but anyways you can still check Belsimtek part of the forum and see if any date was give, but a promo video was already out, i'm sure it mean that the Huey (and DCS World 1.2.4 with him) will be release soon, but when...no one can told it. Don't forget that A10A, SU-27 (probably SU-33 too) and SU-25 3D cockpit was announced, it mean a lot of work, and maybe the SU-25T and the Mig-29 will also have one for the FC3 release, and who know, maybe a new FC3 aircraft will be release for the finale, like F-16, F-15E or F/A-18C. I'm also sure that some new 3D model/texture for AI aircraft (not update since the first Lock On) will be update... Anyways if Belsimtek don't say any release date, the only way to obtain some info its to check the Official Updates part of the forum, no one will inform you here its sure and if anyone who know the release date was even ready to talk about it, you will already know it. But be patient for this one, it will be a big patch i'm sure about it.

Anyways its simple : Any actual simulator don't simulate a guy that we embody inside a cockpit but it simulate a camera in the plane that we embody. Anything new for make us feel real its welcome, even if a huge option page with things to enabled/disabled are needed. In real life you clearly understand and notice that you look trough a canopy, in simulator, when reflection are disabled and no special color (like the missing orange A10C Wingshield or the golden F22 canopy) can you help to see it, you CAN'T see that your canopy are closed if you look up, try with F-15 or SU-27/33, Mig29 or A10C. So maybe its not realistic cause army care about aircraft and don't lest a canopy with scratch (and its only true for the biggest army, small army can't change canopy that easy), but it LOOK realistic, you really feel like you look trough a canopy and its not that unrealistic after all cause see scratch are way more realistic than don't know if we look trough a canopy or not. So an option for anyone want it is welcome... Anyways ED clearly disabled/delete a lot of feature recently and its BAD. Like Pugatchev's Cobra, wingtips vortex (rather than adding wing vapor), pilot body inside KA-50 (rather than adding it to other aircraft and give use working kneeboard), or feature like this now forgotten canopy scratch, and anyways for those who wont it, a lot of mods of "no scratch" was always release...Its way better than make feature with possibility to anyone who want to disabled it than just delete it and nothing more... Anyways ED are way too much overloaded with the 1.2.4, Nevada, next fighter and Thirds party compatibility (and adding us new bugs like the landing gear who collapse during kiss landing with FC3 aircraft :lol: ) And anyways, be honest, rare are people who don't want it and its ONLY visible when the sun make it bright, so its not that unrealistic and finally it give better look to the Sim, and the possibility to disabled it its an important factor.

Sorry for the triple post but something important i have forget (i have write all this from my memory without taking notes) The mission report flood us (i know i do the same with my triple post) First, like someone actually say, we need to know why our engine suddenly explode or goes in fire or stop, birds strike, random failure or error from us, even if show a bird (even with a bad 3D model, anyways we won't see it long time) will be better, just show it in the mission debriefing report will be nice. Also it flood, if we shoot any bot with the gun, we will see in the log a line for every bullets who touch the target... It was way too much, mainly during big air combat, just show the number of bullet in a single line who touch the target and if needed show the start and the end time of the event like : 18h34m24s/18h34m27s And i also remember that i have another wish : Can you please make AI a little more human, they actually eject at the microsecond exact that they take a shoot, they need some delay for a lot of things like this, for a lot of things they react too quickly... And another wish i have just think about... Actually we have an F-15C in Flaming Cliff 3 and one of the next DCS Fighter will be the F-15C, what will happen ? one for FC3 and another in DCS quality or the FC3 replace by the DCS one ? A nice thing to do will be an alpha/beta version of the F-15C, even a prealpha. I explain : FC3 are needed, people who paid the DCS F-15C prealpha will have the F15C of FC3 and a copy named F-15C DCS in the mission editor, it begin with everything exactly like the F-15C of FC3 and slowly begin to be transformed into the DCS one by adding progressively the Alpha/Prealpha version of the AFM, clickable cockpit, advanced avionic etc etc... And what about an FC3 F-15E ? it can help for multiseat with AI and in MP, it will add an USA aircraft (7 aircraft for Russian with the KA-50, 8 with the German Mig-29G...And only 3 for USA with the A10C, a single fighter for USA and no multirole, Russian have two variant of the Mig-29 and the SU-33 are nothing more than a naval SU-27, so variant of the same aircraft are possible to do). The flight model of the F-15C don't need to change, just some tweak for engine (i don't know if the F-15E have more powerful engine than the F-15C or if the rapport weight/thrust still the same) and weight, payload change, 3D model are already done, so a 3D cockpit like actual other aircraft than the F-15C (a 3D cockpit after, but a 2D ole will be a really nice begin and don't take too much time) and almost the same avionic, anyways FC3 aircraft are not 100 realistic. And wishlist for modders : Someone can please try to see if its possible to importing the F-16 from Falcon BMS into DCS World, i don't talk about a DCS model but a FC3 one with nice flight model like we see in BMS and basic avionic like actual FC3 aircraft, or maybe a semi realistic somewhere between DCS and FC3 with clickable cockpit but still totally simplified. It is possible ? @sylkhan Yes i know And probably IFF too, it mean the ILS from A10C will be working and it will be long and complex... Anyways we wait since a lot of time for the next DCS Aircraft and the Nevada map, if ED can focus in a single plane rather than create a lot in the same time, i'm sure the Hornet (or the Eagle) will be already release...

Another things, actually the simulator show ground traffic, but in an AIRCRAFT simulator, civil air traffic wasn't more important ? In a lot of case, in some conflict civil aircraft still flying, even during war, its rare but some aircraft still flying. Civil traffic was a part of the real life fighter pilot every day, escort (during conflict, for protect them) routine interception for control, interception for IFF ID incorrect or radio malfunction, some pilot have never shoot down any aircraft except during training when they shoot drones or with Master Arms in SIM mode, and they still have intercept civil aircraft, also avoid traffic was a part of the military jet pilot life. Possibility to set in mission editor the traffic, normal (for simple training or free flight), conflict (less aircraft but still flight) and war (almost no aircraft, but some rare still flying). Now about Flaming Cliff aircraft, some important things : toes brakes AXIS are needed, also, set afterburner was needed, the best joystick (HOTAS) actually available (the Warthog, i have one) when we use the afterburner hold, its totally not correct with DCS aircraft with AB...Set afterburner will be really nice, mainly if the next aircraft with totally realistic and complexes system was a fighter. What about make the Pugatchev's Cobra back ? What about realistic start up time (and sound ?) for engine start, actually AI and FC3 aircraft start way too fast. And things like realistic speed, for SU-33 wings for example who actually are retract or expend too fast. About AI, better landing was needed, actually the aircraft slow down way too fast, an A10C brake less than the KC-135 or any other big birds... So it was not really nice, and in fact, rather than turn on the first taxiway they find when they have enough slow down, they just wait to roll SLLLLOOOOOOOWWWWLLLLYYYY untill the end of the runway... We need better ATC/Ground traffic control, possibility to formation take off/landing. And what about realistic landing for F-18 bot ? I have check every video of the Hornet i have find, and everytime an Hornet pilot landing on a Runway, he always lets touch the ground without flares maneuver, like they do in a carrier, the FPS was always 5° down, during the approach and during the touch down, some aircraft immediately after the main landing gear touch down lets the nose touch down like the Hornet (anyways they always do controlled crash, in carrier and in runways :D ) like we can see here And other like F-15 or F-16 lets the nose up and use the aircraft like a giant airbrake. And what about AI who will avoid collision ? A realistic ATC who handle more function (maybe not like FSX but something close) like a holding pattern will be first, more realistic and two, avoid unrealistic collision when several bot waiting for landing. Also better weather, the actual was nice but we have almost no choices, look at the FSX one. In DCS we are limited with 3 determined wind altitude, single cloud that was totally flat (no variation) on max density, http://imgs.abduzeedo.com/files/articles/above-clouds-photography/4-7.jpg its not totally flat and i think its the more flat we can get. Also i have notice that in real life when you are close of a cloud, you see clearly until you are inside, but in DCS if you make a max density cloud, you fly just over you will see something like a fog but you clearly see that you are above, so please delete this strange fog effect near of a cloud and add cloud size/altitude variation, look this : http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs28/f/2008/175/3/9/Above_the_Clouds_1_by_Valentine_FOV_Stock.jpg Or this : http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AGhVQ3hUL6Q/TN04KOtt-PI/AAAAAAAAAng/zkDdJNn62Hs/s1600/ws_Above_white_clouds_1920x1200.jpg Or even a video : In real life no strange fog effect transition And can you please separate contrail from engine, contrail who start inside engine was totally bad and kill immersion...Anyways smoke effect need to be reworked, mainly cause of the bad effect that we see when smoke pods or contrail start, like a giant cone... But i have to congratulate you for the effect inside the clouds, when we look at our wing inside a cloud, it was realistic (even if a strange bug if totally missing cloud area appear). I also wish something useful, a lot of time in the mission editor we set speed of AI aircraft, but we don't know cruise speed of every aircraft and we are forced to select a random value, so please can we have the possibility to set (cruise speed/combat cruise speed, supercruise) option ? A speed that will be automatically set depending of the aircraft and the altitude and the payload... Cause always see AI jet can't be long time in air cause always use afterburner or at the edge of the stall its bad... Same for tanker, the cruise speed of a tanker was way different of the speed it will flight for refuel an A10C, so see the tanker automatically adapt his speed to the aircraft he will refuel will be nice. Also pilot body with kneeboard like we have on the Mustang, with customisable page for show, for example, what weapon we have on which station, or AWACS or Tanker radio frequency, the flight plan, the mission itself, or things like ILS or TAKAN frequency, or on our airbase the holding pattern profile, the approach, emergency procedure etc etc... What about ingame options ? ok maybe your actual graphic engine can't handle ingame change (i don't know) but key/controller assignment, sound and other options will be really nice and useful ! About the mission editor, possibility to choose the type and the quantity of ammo for ground/sea unit are needed for a lot of reason, mainly for training missing or some scenario. We also need two things with AI : First Training mission, dogfight with us in SIM mod or with training weapons and other things like this. And also the possibility to be a wingman, always be the leader was NOT what a lot of people like, have to manage our aircraft for a lot of people its already enough without need to manage 3 other aircraft, mainly on mission where we need to be several ships. Also sometimes aircraft was NOT only 4 in a flight, 8 or 12 ship are also possible. Anyways i have some other ask : First, about the 3D 6DOF SU-27 Cockpit, i hope we will also have one for the SU-33, both cockpit are at 99% the same, we have some rare details but that's all. And for the next aircraft, what about single seat and dual seat variant ? most of the work are done with a dual seat and aircraft will be soon able to handle multiple player or player/AI slots ! And just something useful : Emergency firefighter crew, a lot of time our aircraft explode on the ground after some minute in fire cause no firefighter are here to save us... Another things to ask : Clickable radio menu ? before we have the possibility to do it, but now its gone, we need complicated mods for get it to work, for a lot of people who don't use the keyboard during the flight (for example i have my Hotas Warthog and my mouse, nothing less, nothing more and my keyboard was far of me) and i'm sure i was not the only one like this... And a last things, it was more an eye candy than a 100% needed thing, but it can be nice. For some vertical missing launcher like the SA-15 Tor, in game the missing just launch and turn, but in real it was way more impressive and nice, the missing just "jump" with a short burst of an "extraction" engine, rotate with some other engine, and finally ignite the main engine. In game : In real : That was ok if you can't do it, but please for a lot of things like this to change, can you open door to modders and maybe of someone do a nice work to see his work implemented inside DCS, like Ricardo cockpit It took me several hours to write this, i don't write this for trolling or complain, just for clearly explain why several things are needed. I respect Eeagle Dynamics work even if it don't look like.

Hi First, i want to avoid debate about which of F-15 or F/A-18 will be release first. My wishlist focus more on the F/A-18C than the F-15C but it was possible for both. First, Hornet mean carrier ops, high alpha, and restrictions like 7g, no 0g except for transition and high alpha. For carrier Ops, several things was way needed, first of all, ground crew, use external view for placing aircraft on the catapult or teleport it on the catapult position its way unrealistic and will totally waste the work for create a complex and fully realistic aircraft. We need ground crew with a guy who will guide our aircraft for depart from park area to the catapult with correct placement, it will be nice to see people do animation like of they attach our aircraft to the catapult but if its not, well ok, just a guy for guide our aircraft to the catapult, its the minimum require, we also need communication with carrier, ground, control center (they have radar and can told us when they spot an aircraft, in fact launch ship after spotting incoming unknown radar contact was one of the most common thing in carrier), and finally carrier also need communication for approach like in real life. Also parking/ground management, for carrier AND airport, i will back to carrier after, now lets talk about airport. We need a way more better airport management, its an important part of the flight, the ATC was way too much simplified, we have no airport sign, the ground controller just told us : taxi to the parking are...Yes, but which one ? Look at this image : http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kqZ_hq4ViPg/S18QLDq6mbI/AAAAAAAAAko/EcN_TVFYNwE/s1600/RW+Sign+Test.bmp After a brief search of google image, Georgian airport clearly and definitely have airport sign, look at Kutaisi : http://a.pix.ge:81/w/g9ncc.jpg Ground crew who will really manage ground navigation, told is where we need to go and a ground crew who appear on on the parking area that we must park on. Look this, even this "simulator" have ground crew : http://combatpilotseries.com/interactive-ground-crew/ For...Ground, its was needed but for carrier it was obviously impossible to deal without if we want to have realistic experience. Even the guy who will help us for testing control surfaces need so much, in the A10C we can't see our tail and we can't notice (except by using immersion killer external view) if elevator work. Look at this video : with the Eagle or this one with the Hornet. I'm sure if you implement ground crew you, ED Team will only make the guy for surface control test and the guy who lead us to the taxiway for leaving the parking area to the taxiway for take off or the guy who will lead us from the taxiway to the parking area after land, i totally understand that you don't have the time to make long animation of ground crew check our aircraft and do a lot of things with, but at least plz open doors and lets the possibility to modders to upgrade any potential ground crew with more animations. And if even radar/engine cover, remove before flight pins and other are not needed but eyecandy, the wheel chocks are really useful. First : cause sometime our aircraft begin to roll on the ground before we expect to taxi, just cause of wind, i have see a lot of time my SU-25 (simple and T variant) rolling on the ground with minimum throttle after land and leave the parking, but with carrier, who NEED to pitching for carrier OPS, a lot of time our aircraft slide on him cause for the moment i never have see any game/simulator who really simulate friction and avoid object to slide on other, the wheel chocks can be considerate like "attach on ground/attach on carrier" things. Back to the carrier, we need a way better model with aircraft on the deck and several aircraft configuration, launch, recovery, tanning, clear deck etc etc and why not working elevator, and before you start to told me that a carrier with full deck will be impossible cause of performance or any other things, just look at the Nimitz carrier addon for Flight Simulator X (also a CPU based game with same kind of graphic and who also need NASA's computer for operate. Look this one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRdcQwpGq1U And everytime i have use this carrier, even with full carrier combat group, i have NEVER notice FPS drop over 2 FPS loss, so if an amateur modder can do it, ED Team can also do it, empty deck was unrealistic and kill totally immersion... Carrier combat group are also needed, mainly in a combat sim, FSX was a civilian sim and already handle it. Carrier group with realistic configuration of this (class, distance, number, position). And a WAY more important feature : during launch and recovery the carrier need to turn ahead of the wind and back to waypoint cap after all ship was recovered or launch, and that was one of the more important reason why we need to communicate with carrier. I hope you will agree... And what about Windsock ? Hornet or Eagle mean fighter with high speed and turn capability, the hornet are know for the famous vapor on wings (mainly cause it operate over water a lot of time), we really all want the wing vapor effect, both vapor type, first created by vortex : http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/3/1/1/8/2/4/a4345604-208-F18%20vapor%20Key%20West.jpg And the second on the wings : http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/11/227ef9684b418386ad2d42205d9ebf8c.jpg If even you don't want to do it yourself for every aircraft (cause every aircraft need different animation, i know) open door for modders. http://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/fa-18e_super_hornet.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/FA-18F_vapor_over_wings_1.jpg/750px-FA-18F_vapor_over_wings_1.jpg Same for transonic vapor cone : http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2920839094_77107826ac.jpg http://static.squarespace.com/static/4f393c5b875415a6736e90fc/4feb3fb9e4b03725783e89af/4feb3fb9e4b03725783e89cb/1338082329093/1000w About transonic and sound, please can you considerate the possibility to make aircraft LESS louder with cockpit are open or in external view, i know it was realistic, but you don't need to simulate headache and noise-induced hearing loss by make us have an headache and become deaf. Actually with STANDARD volume that i use for all music, game, skype communication and video, they are all almost the same, but i always need to turn down volume for DCS and ONLY cause of the engine sound when cockpit are open or in external view, the sound are so loud that it make my headphone crackling, except, and its not a problem of volume, even in really low volume it do it, and its not a problem from my computer, my old computer also experiment it, my Logitech G930, my Tritton Ax Pro and my new Razer Tiamat 7.1 do it and also my hifi, so 3 headphone, 2 computer and a hifi, the problem don't come from me, even in youtube a notice this way too much loud sound on DCS video. Example : regular P51D video : Another one : The problem that i talk about : and the problem don't come from youtube, and you can show me any other video with a less loud sound but a lot of use probably turn down the volume during video compression/montage. And also, the Doppler effect are way too much exaggerated, you use a separate CPU core only for the sound, so please exploit it correctly... I know this video are not loud, the creator of this video probably turn down the volume, but listen the huge difference between internal and external view : its almost twice the volume, transition at 1:00 and explosion at 1:45, the sound really and clearly need an upgrade. Anyway back to talk about smoke, look at Seven G : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTFIE_cA-LM with he firing the gun, when the aircraft was hit and when pilot eject, the effect look great, sure its not Arma 3 but the smoke effect still look nice, the same level than DCS i think but it was clearly WAY more FPS friendly, and the ejection look WAY more realistic ! This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xywrekEIJIg show a lot of great things but at 2:50 we can clearly see how vapor was really nicely done, cause i"m afraid to see something like this : http://flyawaysimulation.com/images/downloadshots/14013-sukhoi-su-24m-aizip-921-su-24-supersonic.jpg or like this http://flyawaysimulation.com/images/downloadshots/14014-sukhoi-su-24m-fencerzip-914-supersonic.jpg or like this http://www.crimeanairwars.com/Frontpage2/FA18E/Vapor3.jpg, completly different than this : http://wodumedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/A-ring-of-water-vapour-is-created-around-pilot-Lt.-Justin-Halligan-left-and-Lt.-Michael-Witt-right-as-they-fly-their-FA-18F-Super-Hornet-airplane-while-performing-at-New-York-Air-Show-at-Jones-Beach-in-Wantagh-New-York-May-960x579.jpg you have to admit. Or some flat and bad vapor like this : http://www.crimeanairwars.com/Frontpage2/FA18E/small/Vapor2.jpg or like this http://www.crimeanairwars.com/Frontpage2/FA18E/Vapor1.jpg rather than this : http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/schuit/FlightSim/F-16-vapor.jpg Please don't do that... In the second Seven G video i have link, you can, around 3 minutes see a missile, did you notice the smoke ? realistic and FPS friendly. So plz change the unrealistic and FPS killer smoke... In the video of Seven G you can also notice two important things on the Hornet. First, flexible wings, the IRL Hornet are know for be one of the most flexible wings fighter, that why NASA choose this one for aeroelastic wing study with the X53. So flexible wing are nice to see, even Falcon BMS who are not reputed for graphic beauty have it. And also High Alpha, it mean first vapor and mainly, vibration in cockpit, and i don't talk about camera inside cockpit who vibrate, i talk about camera who show the body of the pilot TOTALLY vibrate during high G turn (any minimum radius) or high alpha. In this video we can clearly see an F-18 with vapor, wing flexibility and pilot body vibrate, even at slow speed and high alpha Also what about payload over G ? and ice on surface/windshield ? Part two in comment below !

With the Huey, dual/multi seater and multiple vehicle position are now allowed ! So no excuse to ED for now create the F/A-18C AND the F/A-18D, same for the F-15C/D With C version of any of them, a lot of work are already done, the flight model don't need to change a lot, the avionic are the same, just some more function for the copilot and a modified 3D model (with copy and past for majors party) But i think if we want the dual seat variant of any of them, we will need to fight, sadly... A lot of people want to be a RIO, it can be fun and immersible, mainly for anyone in a squadron or even teach someone. Anyways, High Alpha yeah, nothing are better !!!

Yes, i think the same, digital version cost nothing to ED per buy unlike DVD version, it earn them more money, its a way to do a gift for someone and donate money to ED in the same time ! Its pretty much the same things than regular donate, but the difference was that more people can profit of the sim and finally more people will know it and for the future of DCS its better cause more customers attract more customers ! This solution its way more better for everyone than regular donate !

You can also try a mods for clickable radio menu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACFUO8lElMI

If you want i have created an MP mission for ILS training with the A10C. Its not a tutorial, it require to know how to do ILS approach, but its a no visual approach with several aircraft in the air, including Tanker for any Refuel attempt over the cloud, i have set a correct wind, but the QFE its really low, its not a finished mission but its nice for training. I have try to do a MP server with this mission but i think no one see my serer, my firewall (even with exception/ports and other settings even in my router) don't lets it work, i will run it again and see... A10C In bad weather training MP.miz

I'm sure the next DCS Aircraft will be release before Seven G... Maybe the first DCS Aircraft will be the Eagle and Seven G will be release before DCS F/A-18C, but Seven G project have a huge delay and will not be release before Q2/Q3 2014

Nice logic, i agree and i have vote "yup" but too soon, ED always say some days/week before they release a patch and the sale its too soon for see the patch 1.2.4, and the Huey will coming with this patch, and they will post more video of the Huey before it come out.