rattler

Tom Hi; Tom, amazing work as usual. Looking forward to a download. Cheers. Pete(rattler)

What can I say Mower, you have a great command for speakith the truth and in very short remarks. You are the MASTER of the English short remarks.:DI bow to your expertise.:P

To correct a statement made earlier, couple pages back. It was about aerodynamics and simulation. You can with a desktop computer have AFM but requires more than what ED uses. Plus it would be cost prohibitive for ED or any Games Company to try but yes it can be done and has been done and is still being done but not by Game Companies, way to high a price tag.:cry:

Now ,now,let's not forget they started the ball rolling, it just had too many curves.:D

This is very TRUE. ED will decide. Let's just hope that a small amount of customer related information from this forum also has some small weight in the final decision. That would be nice.:)

Yes indeed. I just wonder if the DCS Modules are a bit of overkill. This is the area I have difficulty. Is it really necessary to have the level of DCS. I personally think we could come somewhat short on that and make a sim. more fun and still maintain a level of decent accuracy. Put some of the bells and whistles in other needed spots. Let's face it. We all get older and some of us have been flying a long time. If we wait for a DCS module for fast movers, we may be out of the game by the time it comes out. I think a New FC3 with less bells and whistles for the aircraft and applied elsewhere would shorten the time and still produce an aircraft with decent accuracy. I don't dispute that DCS is in a class by itself, it surely is but do we really need it to be, that is the question. Some will say yes but maybe you might be surprised on how many may say, not to that high degree. Just my thoughts.:thumbup:

Just make a NEW FC3. Like someone said, if it cost $100 it would sell. I'm with him. DCS is a great idea but takes way too much time to build new Modules when you stop and think of all the resources used to fix bugs. More Modules of this type, more problems to fix. A new FC3 to todays standards would be welcome at least by me and obviously by some others. Like someone said(no name),the only difference is the amount of buttons to push. Maybe one should read the F4AF and FF5 forums and see how many just start on the runway....:D

Thanks for the info, looking forward to this new version. cheers.:thumbup:

AdA team Hi guy's: Any info on the Rafale release or ADA v.2.0? Thanks for any info.

Well I did say that they could find information on airframes and components without having a military contract. It just won't be aircraft such as the f15e,f18e etc. but earlier versions like maybe f4 phantom etc. not just public sources but from the aircraft manufacturer as well for earlier models no longer front line aircraft. Maybe a biplane or 2 also. Oh ya, il series sorry.lol:P

You are correct. I did not dispute that it is much better to have a contract to help make a high quality sim such as DCS. I only said not all information on airframes and components on front line aircraft will be allowed to be released to the public. Is this not what you are saying also. Oh hell the one liners are better anyway, keep em coming.:megalol:

Man does anybody read anymore. Go back and READ. Well said? what the H... is well said. Man no one is giving TFC/ED a hard time,just pointing out to some that simulation of front line airframe and components is not modeld to the degree people think. Yes TFC/ED has a high bar set for DCS, that we all agree, it is just not as high as you may think do to it's military classification of some airframes etc.. We all agree on that even TFC/ED. The somewhat mute point was that there are airframes and component knowledge out there that TFC/ED could use and keep their high standard, without a military contract but getting a military contract and doing a sim is great use of Company resources. Which seems to be the path TFC/ED is taking and that is why we wait for DCS modules when we really don't have to wait . Now do you get it. It may not be the new high tech airframes that everyone wants and if they want it and TFC/ED get a military Contract then it will be somewhat accurate and it won't be the 95+%, gees use your head,if you were a Country with a front end airframe and components are you going to give all the information so a Company can do a Flight Simulator game. Come on. Now that said yes there are airframes and components out there that can be used and meet TFc/ED's high level of standards just not the ones you may like, but then again you just might .Not saying anymore on the subject. It's covered.

Man where do you get that I said guess. It is a known fact that TFC/ED did not receive permission to release all information on the A10C. So if you take that as a guess, that is your statement not mine.

No, I am not missing the point nor am I comparing TFC/ED to Novalogic etc.. and no they would not have 95% of the actual combat airframe information. Nobody but the Countries that fly that version would have the information and it would be 100% and classfied. The Public would not have any access to 95% of an operational airframe and components. I am not saying guess either. TFC/ED have a very high standard as was already mentioned. There is information available on airframes that would meet their high standard but it may not be the aircraft you wish to see right now as a DCS module. Just go back and read, especially E,s. last post. Then you may get the jest of our conversation.Cheers.

Thanks Cali, you are getting the idea of what E. and I are talking about. This was just a nice conversation in which specifics can not be mentioned but still we can have some sort of rational conversation on the subject. Cheers, have a great night. or day.lol.:thumbup:

What question? That I don't know whats missing. My point was that there is information missing that can't be put to Public.ok. Could I tell you, no, I would be in contravention of my security clearance.ok. There is no way that specifics can be discussed either by me, TFC/ED or anyone connected to TFC/ED or Government Services. So that's it. Like it or not.

You know E, this is a great conversation and I don't disagree a whole lot with your point of view. Too bad some people just don't understand. Been nice chatting but I guess maybe if we want to continue to have an informed conversation we will have to take it to PM. Cheers. E, have a great night. rattler

No I don't think so, Just read what I did for 30+ years and use your brain to figure out the rest.;)

We had a nice conversation going, so why the hostility? I really don't care what is missing, somethings are missing. You missed the point entirely. Talk to E. maybe he can explain it to you. Gees man, chill.

Yes E, I know what you are saying and we are both going in the same direction. Yes TFC/ED was given permission but ,lol ya a but, because of the nature of the Contract as you say permission for Civil release may or may not be required. In most case it probably would when dealing with Military from any Country. Now how to say this properly, let's see, yes permission was granted, that I agree, but permission for all information that was made available in the Contract, this I would doubt. I do believe they were given permission to release parts but not all, if you follow me. I have seen such Contracts and been a part of such in my 30+ years with the Canadian Avation Regulatory Department when we switched to this type of classroom teaching method. Hope this clears up my statements.

Yes, all that said and to some degree, I agree by the way. My main point and I see that some agree that a military contract is not necessary to develop a simulation acceptable to TFC/ED requirements. Now let's touch briefly on a Military Contract. Most of these contracts are to build software for teaching aids in the classroom. They are not Military Flight Simulators. I would say that most will realize this. It is a much better way to teach classroom scenarios instead of the old blackboard/whiteboard type of teaching. Therefore they are made to do a specific thing and the software only has to be let's say for arguments sake 70% of the airframe performance. They are not teaching flight simulation but basic classroom situations. This has proven to be very successful in both Civil and Military applications. To get such contracts, yes are a great help to a Company who also has a department which is in the business of Combat Flight Sim. Games. To say that TFC/ED really needed this to go from an A10A to an A10C, well I would question that. Does it help to have a contract, most definitely. Just to touch on a comment that, TFC/ED does not necessarily need a Military Contract, I believe I read some where that this is their preferred method of doing business, so I will stand corrected on requirement and change to preferred. Cheers.

Well it's a sad state that they need a military contract just to do a model with some what accuracy, good enough for simulation. You don't need a military contract to build a reasonably accurate airframe. The A-10C just done, is only somewhat accurate as there are always secrets kept. It is only as accurate as the U.S. and other Countries that fly this Version wish it to be, so don't think that the A-10C is an accurate representation of that airframe, I assure you it is not. You can argue that statement all you like, the truth is it is only somewhat accurate. So I pose the question why does TFC/ED need a military contract? Just an excuse from where I sit. Yes This statment will probably be jumped on because certain people will say it is not economically sound for TFC/ED to do a simulator without a military contract, they are a small Company. If this is the case then we will be waiting a long time for a fast mover in a DCS module. Just my thoughts and I am sure people will disagree. That is there right to do so. Cheers. Rattler

Here's an even better question. Why doesn't TFC/ED just come out and say which ones are of interest to them for the next Module? Now you only have to guess on a couple instead of this. f-16 f-18c/e f-15e su-27 ef-2000 f-22 f-14 and on and on.:noexpression:

hee hee:lol:

Now, that's a very good point. I agree.:thumbup: