Flogger23m

It would help to upgrade the CPU as well. But the GPU is easier and would be a good upgrade.

This. Why spend $25 to get the F-15C, and then probably spend $15-25 for the Su-27 or some other plane if you want them? Just get FC3 as you'll get a bunch of planes.

Another quick question. I know the F-15 template has the USAF marking "decals" but the Su-27 template does not seem to contain the Russian star? Is it found on a certain file or must I source the Russian AF roundels from the internet? And is there an Su-33 template in the works?

Su-35 may be comparable to an F-15 or Eurofighter/Rafale. But the Russians tend to be behind on advanced avionics compared to the west. The Su-35 is competent, but it won't do so well against an F-22. Canned dogfights with guns only where the Eurofighters are told the F-22s are is not a good way to measure survivability/combat.

The main issue would be the lack of Vietnamese aircraft. MIG-17/19/21 and Mi-8. Anything else? The fighters were all dated compared to the F-4. I do not think South Vietnamese F-5s fought MIG-21s. Something based around the wars in the 60-70s with Israel might be better. Mirage 3s are a better match for the MIG-21. And you can still add in A-4s and F-4s.

Still have not got a chance to try reinstalling the Photoshop plug in, but I have uploaded a "beta" version of my Su-27 skins. If someone has time and if they can download them and see if they are up to par with other skins I would appreciate it. :) Any tips or noticeable issues in game would be helpful. Download link: http://www.gamefront.com/files/24227431/DCS+Su-27+Splinter+Desert+39-40.rar

Certainly not getting that option/screen. Will doubt check installation and try as admin. The pen tool did help and I redid the camo F-15s in the OP. They look much better.

Will try that. It seems to install fine, but does not give me an option in Photoshop. I am running CS2 on Win 7 64bit if it matters. And another quick question. For splinter/digital type camo, is it preferable to use the brush tool over the line tool? The brush tool seems to give me less jaggies when doing straight lines. Thinking of redoing the F-15s posted above rather than attempting to clean them up.

How would I install it? I ran the installer but it does not seem to do anything. I can't save files in .DDS and I can not open .DDS files in photoshop after running the installer. I am using CS2 and Win 7 64bit if it matters.

Hello, I am attempting to learn how to skin in DCS. Currently I am using Photoshop CS2. As it can not save files directly to .dds I must use DXTBmp. In Photoshop I save the file as a 32bit .bmp (does it make a difference compared to 24 bit?), open the .bmp in DXTBmp and convert it to a DDS DXT5. I then place the files in the appropriate folders and the skins show up in DCS World. However, I have been told that converting the files to .bmp and then using DXTBmp to convert them to .dds will result in a visual quality loss. Is this true? I have been told that using GIMP with a .dds plugin negates the need to use DXTBmp and the .bmp conversion process which in theory should prevent image quality loss, but when I did this the results were not very good: Left - Photoshop save as .bmp, open and convert in DXTBmp to .dds. Right - Photoshop, open .PSD with GIMP, save as .dds. Appears very bright, odd AA issues and some markings got removed: Any insight/advice would be appreciated. If using DXTBmp does not actually cause any loss in image quality then I will continue using it in conjunction with Photoshop and forget about using GIMP. For those interested, here are some of the skins I am working on: If there is interest and they are up to par I will release them for download.

Hello, I am currently in the progress of making a retexture/skin for the Su-27, using ED's official Su-27 template, Photoshop CS2 and DXTBmp to convert the files to .DDS. I have previously installed other 3rd party Su-27 skins as well. My retexture has been coming along nicely and I have succesfully imported it in game many times to see how it looked without issue. Although the latest iteration now has an issue with the engines in game: For some reason the issue seems to be affecting other mod skins which I did not modify in anyway: As shown in the first image the issue does not seem to affect the skins which ship with the game. The only thing I changed between the last version and the current version was slightly modifying the camo lines. Does anyone know why this issue is happening and how I can fix it?

Sorry for bumping an older thread... But as the Su-33 model is out hopefully you can release a Yellow 13 & 4 skin? I also did not see a Mobius One skin on Lock On files (preferably for the F-15C) - did you happen to do one and upload it elsewhere? Nice work on the skins you have currently released. I am using the Galm 1/2 and they look amazing. Just downloaded some other ones and will install them.

An F-4 would be a poor counterpart. And it requires AI or another human player. An F-5E would be a nice counterpart to the MiG-21Bis. An F-4E or Mirage F1 VS MiG-23ML/MLD would be a more favorable comparison.

Congratulations, you missed the point yet again. No one cares about which specific aircraft you prefer. The discussion is not about a person's aircraft preference. If you forgot the thread title I'll repost it here: Aircraft era fracture The question was how to minimize this. Had this game had a sufficient WWII environment (which it does not; though DCS: WWII will) then the ideal way to minimize time era fracture would be to make WWII era aircraft. It isn't a hard idea to grasp. The only other way to do this is for a team to focus on building a larger module/expansion, much like the team behind DCS: WWII is doing. But clearly that requires a bigger team and aircraft only studios are not in that business. Hence the aforementioned argument. Regarding civil aviation I would prefer if they stay out of DCS World, save for AI units. DCS should stick true to its roots: A combat flight simulator. Half the simulation in a title like Flaming Cliffs or A-10C is the combat. The sandbox "do everything" concept is a terrible one due to the lack of man power. Take a look at ArmA, a game with a bigger team and likely more money to work with than Eagle Dynamics. Nothing in the game is superb in quality; everything suffers as it attempts to cover everything. 3rd parties will likely be unable to work on engine related features to make civil aviation what it should be.

Thank you for displaying to the world your lack of comprehension skills. :thumbup: The question was how to concentrate 3rd party development. The answer is simple: Build within the set time frame. The various modules will then fit in a concentrated area without the individual teams having to synchronize development. For example, take the Super Hornet and the Mirage 2000. Independent development teams yet both will manage to fit in a proper combat environment. It may be a strange concept to you, but it certainly isn't for most of us. Seems like you are happy with simply learning to throw switches on certain aircraft regardless of the simulated environment. Thanks for confirming my point. :doh: Those looking for a full simulation won't be interested in simply learning the flight procedures. Those who are interested in learning controls only will be happy without a proper environment. It really isn't hard to grasp and you should not make it more difficult than it is.

At least someone understands. We'll get members angry at FC3 level realism, yet for some reason cheer on biplanes going into combat against MiG-29s and SA-10s as if that is sensible or realistic. Flying realistic aircraft is part of the equation. Utilizing them in a realistic manner is the other half. Learning systems is fine but when you have FC3 level of realism and especially study sim level you need to be able to use all of the avionics and put them to use. Otherwise they are largely going to waste since they can not be sensibly used in combat. If someone wants to make a Korean War module then they should do that. It will have to include MiG-15s, C-53s, T-34s and appropriate anti aircraft weapons. They do not even have to pick a specific war; but there needs to be time period equipment to go along with the F-86. It is pretty simple. They can choose to do aircraft from the 1970-modern times. Jaguar, Mirage F1, F-16, Su-17, MiG-29K are some examples. There are plenty of aircraft. Those who are just interesting in throwing switches and learning how to take off/land will be happy either way. Those looking to put their knowledge to the test and participate in combat will require a proper environment. From a sales perspective, building something that fits in the current time line makes the most sense as you can please both types of customers.

Developers should make 80s-current equipment. Some 1970s stuff is okay, but starts feeling out of place. DCS should be a combat simulator, not simply a flight sim (like FSX). Hard to engage in combat when there are no other time period units to fight with/against. If someone has to develop an older plane, why not do something like the F-5E? It fits well into the 1980-90s time frame, will soon have a comparable aircraft to fight against (MiG-21Bis) and fits in with units like the HAWK, M60 ect. A much better option than making an F-86 and waiting 4-5 years for 1950s era units to start populating the game.

Can I update my 1.2.7 install to the 1.2.8 beta and eventually have that patch into 1.2.8? Or must I download the entire thing to get into the beta?

It is much closer to study level than it is arcade level which is a fact. Regardless of what your person definition/opinion is.

The Su-25T is better for beginners. I would also recommend the MIG-29A to become free as well. It offers basic air to air combat, yet is limited compared to the S. Most new players want to play air to air and dog fight. The Su-25 (any type) is a turn off for those new to flight sims. Some people try the Su-25T and think all the planes will behave the same way. An agile aircraft would probably suck more people in.

Need another brother? How is Combined Arms now?

Two seat aircraft. You will have to fly with the AI which can be a pain. Especially when learning. Or jump between two different seats, which is difficult and disorienting. You can always play online but I imagine many people want to play offline and/or can not always find people to play with online when they have free time. It is rather simple. And a MIG-23 or Mirage F1 would fair better against an F-4.

I am not opposed to the study sim detail, but I won't run out to buy every aircraft (time constraints ect.). As mentioned, I would much prefer more FC3 level F/A-18s, MIG-29Ks, F-16Cs, Mirage 2000s, F-1s and Su-17s. There are plenty of people who prefer the FC3 level of detail.

A while back I wrote a review for DCS: World and DCS: P-51. There are not many reviews on DCS: World and plenty of people seem to be confused about what it is. Especially with it being listed as a "free to play" game on Steam which tends to mean something different to the average gamer. I've had some difficultly explaining to others what type of game DCS is and the lack of reviews did not seem to help. Hence why I wrote the reviews. :) They are intended for average gamers so I am light on terminology. If you have any friends who are average gamers that you are trying to get interested in DCS then perhaps sending a link to the reviews can be helpful. I got at least one person to try DCS so far after sending them the links. Feel free to point out any mistakes in the articles to. DCS: World: http://overlordgaming.us/archives/1128 DCS: P-51: http://overlordgaming.us/archives/3644 I'll also consider doing reviews for other modules that I own. More exposure can be a good thing for DCS. And because others might be interested, here is my Rise of Flight review: http://overlordgaming.us/archives/2228 Let me know what you think.

Flaming Cliffs isn't an arcade game. An example of a good arcade styled game would be the older Ace Combat titles. Anyone, regardless of aircraft knowledge, should be able to discern the difference between the two. FC is certainly a simulator, even if the systems are simplified. Peronsally I would much prefer more FC level aircraft. They take a while to learn, give a superb impression of flight (especially with the AFM) and are realistic enough to simulate realistic combat operations. In particular, I like modern 80-2000s fighter/attack aircraft and would like some multiroles. I am glad that DCS: WWII and the likes is in the works but I would much prefer more modern airframes opposed to WWII planes or trainers/transport helicopters which seem to be what third party developers are focusing on. Give me an FC3 level Jaguar and F-16 and I will buy them.