Germane

Hoffen wir mal, dass es nicht mehr all zu lange dauert und wir dieses Jahr noch in den Genuss von Multicore und Vulkan kommen. Hierzu könnte sich ED durchaus mal etwas mehr auslassen. Ich hoffe, dass danach die Arbeit an den ganzen anderen Baustellen (ATC, Überarbeitung Luftbetankung, IFF Integration ....) ordentlich fahrt aufnimmt...

Danke für die Erklärung! Aber jetzt nehmen wir mal an wir bekommen Multicore Unterstützung zuerst, wie ja auch schon angedeutet wurde, welcher Mehrwert ist denn dann noch von Vulkan zu erwarten? Bzw. bedeutet Vulkan auch eine komplett neu geschriebene Grafik Engine mit neuer Beleuchtung etc. pp.? Ich hab noch nicht so ganz verstanden ob es letztendlich "nur" auf eine bessere Mehrkern-Unterstützung hinaus läuft oder ob die Änderungen weitreichender sind.

War das damals der aktuelle Stand zu Multicore oder zu Vulcan? Grundsätzlich mal eine ganz blöde Frage: Was ist denn eigentlich der Unterschied zwischen Multicore und Vulcan? Im Prinzip geht es doch bei beiden um die Mehrkern Untersützung. Irgendwie hat sich mir das noch nicht so ganz erschlossen...

That was a statement from ED itself. Of course, this is to be taken with a grain of salt, but I think it is more or less reliable and not totally unrealistic. HB will always have to keep ED up to date, I think.

I see it differently. I have nothing against an Australia map and do not necessarily need the context of a conflict. I also like pure "sight seeing" maps to fly around and I m happy about this announcement. BUT for me the quality of the product is crucial. I don't care if it's the first map of the developers or the 10th. If the quality meets my expectations then I buy it - if not then not.

The last official statement was "early 23". That's why I almost assume that it will come sometime in 23. But we will see...

I hope for a BisII version. I would already be very satisfied with that.

I would add the rework of the radar to that list

Ehm, please what?! We all know exactly the same thing from the official channels. No more and no less. Whether that is enough is up to each person. You are the one who speculates and insinuates something. There is a word for that too...

Sorry, but No. Yes, it's true. We don't know anything about the work going on in the background and what difficulties ED is facing. But that is only because the communication on the part of ED is so bad, or better - non-existent. What we do see, however, is the result, and that is very much in need of improvement. And what we also see is that nothing has changed in the last 1.5 years and that cannot be glossed over. So you don't have to be surprised when customers become dissatisfied.

Hi, I could not find the mod anymore. Was it removed?

That is indeed a good question

Ohh

You mean its moddelt for them?

I hope there will be a lot of work on the ambient sounds such as wind-, sea-, ship sounds, deck noises etc. These contribute a lot to making the carrier more lively. You can see this very nicely in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_-6ux7ZS8c Just adding realistic wind and sea sounds would make a big difference. At the moment it just sounds strange when you are standing on a carrier and all the engines are off.

At the moment, you drive through the wire while manoeuvring on the deck. That really disturbs the immersion. Please turns the wires into a real 3D object over which the plane must taxies

Hey ED, What is the situation? The wobbling mouse pointer is just incredibly annoying!

Trotzdem sieht das Ergebnis beeindruckend aus...obwohl die ganze Welt dargestellt wird. Das wollte ich eigentlich nur damit sagen. Sollte die "komplette Welt" tatsächlich in DCS umgesetzt werden, werden eh tiefgreifende Änderungen an der Engine notwendig sein. Aber bis das mal konkreter wird werden eh noch viele Jahre vergehen.

Naja, alles eine Frage der Umsetzung. Nur weil das Ergebnis hier mangelhaft ist, heißt das noch nicht, dass mit der Technik keine beeindruckenden Landschaften möglich sind. Microsoft hat das ja überaus beeindruckend bewiesen.

+1

Any news? ED??

I agree that the Mig urgend need a complete overhaul. Less in terms of the FM but, as others have said, in terms of the systems. I would also be willing to pay for it. We need a module that does justice to this very special aircraft. At the moment, this is not the case...

Okay I understand why there is the option to change it but why is there no default setting? I mean there is one setting where the scale is correct. That would avoid a lot of testing and trouble

I dont know the Apache but yeah, the f18 seams right. If you test the F16 you will notice that it seams strange and to small. Hiob is right. In DCS, IPD scales the size. You notice it when you compare different modules. Some look way too big, others way too small and still others fit. Question: Why is that not standardised? Each module seems to be designed for a different value

I think there should be even more. Not too long ago, there was information that 8 more employees had recently been hired. I don't know how many employees they had before but I think it was more than two. Plus freelancers and part-timers I think. It would be interesting to know how many people work at HB.