chaos

I was a bit surprised by that as well... especially since we were shown some screenshots and that video of the terrain more than a year ago. To be honest, the few pics we have are nothing short of amazing and I wonder if they went 'a bridge too far'. Possibly had to re-do the whole thing on a more realistic scale? Anyways, it's a brand new graphics/terrain engine so delays were to be expected. Safe to say it is a long ways off... I do appreciate the updates. One of the things I look forward to on a Friday :-)

Why don't you buy an MS Surface Pro? I bought one 2 months ago and it's great. Full Win8 OS, active digitizer pen and... USB connector! Why anyone would purchase an overpriced App-launcher is beyond me. The Surface is comparable in price to the 'top of the line' iPad yet it offers a complete pc experience. Multi monitor support out of the box... no brainer...

Agreed... However, the choice to simulate an F-18 is, in my opinion, very ambitious because of the complexity. I would've expected ED to take on a 'simple' fast mover as their next project. A pure land based fighter with an outdated radar. Babysteps... Having said that, I'm sure they know what they're doing and I can't wait...

I was one of those guys who refused to install W95 and was therefor stuck with the Flanker 1.0 DOS_demo for months... until I couldn't wait any longer and had to join the Dark Side... Flame wars on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flightsim. EF2000 vs Flanker... no contest, really :). Endless discussion on shaded polygons vs textured graphics. Good times at the Big Bear meet in Apeldoorn, Holland... Sheesh...almost 20 years ago...

... Skyhawk and Skyraider too! No complicated systems, as opposed to the F4, and single engine and single pilot too. A no-brainer! Heck, one could even include a simple O-1 Birddog to mark the targets... Hmmm... Birddog... have to brush-up on my art and coding sKiLLZ!

Hey... Do I hear 'SEPECAT JAGUAR'? :)

GR4... a bit of a shame as I would've preferred a GR1. The brits are notoriously stingy with releasing any mil tech info, especially from something as recent as a "4". But, any Tornado is better than no Tornado at all so "Full Steam Ahead!".

Don't want to be a party pooper but nothing has been announced officially. If, for whatever reason, it doesnt happen dont come crying... :-)

FSX does some things right... heck, maybe even better than DCS or X-plane but extending it to include combat is never going to work satisfactorily... and neither will X-plane. That bit should be coded in from the Day 1 In My Uneducated Opinion. That is so integral to the package. It's like designing a car without any provisions and space for the engine.

X-Trident should port it to DCS... PLEASE! High Rez terrain of 'The Loop' and I'll be set for life!

Make sure that, when you compile the code, you're out of DEBUG mode. See if that makes a difference..

I can replicate it on the ground as well... not always though. By opening the throttle quickly to "full blast" with the prop control in the course setting, the engine will usually seize. I love this sim :) But we're getting off topic... still not completely sure what caused seizure in your other .TRK...

Aaaah... got ya. Well, I just tried to do what you did in the air and to my surprise I was able to get it to seize in the air. It should work on the ground as well. It might not have worked in your ground test because the power transients were too short.... I'm going to test the same thing on the ground and report back :)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here... You're overboosting the engine by placing the prop control in low-rpm and then opening the throttle (exceeding 60" a few times). That will result in failure at some point (if indeed this is modeled in the sim...). I guess I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove here...

Isn't there some sort of workaround to this? Would it be possible to use the smokestack object and replace the 3D model with a windsock.. sans smoke of course :)

Lots of potential. Just one tip, if I may... I hate the 'music'. It's distracting. You need something moody... not noise you'd experience in a bad club. :)

Pyroflash, Come on... now you're just being silly. Can you back that up? Give me examples, please. If you're reffering to the AF crash you couldn't be further from the truth. Although it seems to be 'cut n dried' when you read the report superficially, once you delve a little deeper a different picture emerges. I can give you my take on the accident but it doesn't belong in this thread. Don't make blanket statements like that... it makes you appear ignorant and I know, from you previous posts, that you're not.

I think we're going off topic... I'd just like to add my 2 cents. :-) I see a lot of uninformed comments being made by wannabees, private pilots and 'almost commercial' pilots. Pyro, The internal workings of an altimeter is of very little interest to a pilot. Its nice to know but not essential knowledge when dealing with a pitot static problem. The mental capacity to engineer yourself out of a situation is simply not available in the heat of the moment. Besides, what are you going to do...? Breakout your Leatherman tool and fix it? No.. you collect information from different sources and compare. Isolate the problem and move on. I hate to admit it but my technical knowledge of the aircraft that I fly is very limited. I hate to admit it because it is professional pride, not lack of essential knowledge. However, mr. Boeing believes it is not necessary to provide me with this knowledge and he has been right sofar. I have passed my checks every single time since I started flying for the airlines 20 years ago. Must be doing something right... James r. Wright, May I ask why you stopped short of a commercial license? Surely completing 15 hrs. of flying to finish the course wasn't insurmountable? Your former boss hasn't got a clue what commercial flying is all about and neither do you. It's definitely not 'driving a bus'. Back on topic... I do feel that 'real pilots' have a definite leg up compared to wannabees when discussing FM's. Certainly in the era of FSX and the like. The devil is in the details and one can only understand the details if one actually flies an aircraft (big or small). It's all about the 'feel' and past experience of actual flying. Sounds vague but one only needs to talk to a real pilot or wannabe for a minute to figure out who is who... However, for the first time in more than 2 decades of flying simulators, the lines are starting to blur with the release of DCS products. The fidelity is such that one gets a very good impression of what happens in certain flight regimes. There's always room for improvement but that also goes for the Level D sims in our training dept. It'll never be perfect... that's why it is called a simulation. :-) Regards, Chaos

Current on B777 Soon current on Jet Provost mk3 C152 aerobat, C172 skyhawk, C180, C182, C310. PA-23 aztec, PA-31 chieftain, Pa-32 Lance Be-58 Baron Fokker 50, Fokker 70, Fokker 100 B737 300/400/800/900 :-)

I'm not a big fan of GA movies in general but I have to admit that this one is extremely well done. Good on ya, mate!

'A hundred feet over hell'. It's a book about a FAC in Vietnam who used the very same technique to fool the N Vietnamese over the DMZ. Flying a Cessna Birddog made him an even easier target not having the advantage of speed. Highly recommended reading!

I can't believe you guys/gals! Look at Matts video again... LOOK!.. no seriously... LLOOOOOKK! Is that a Messerschmitt ME-109 going down in flames? YES!

Meh... that was poor marksmanship... cr@p pilot. I can do a far better job in DCS A-10C :)

Coooool vid, mate. I was actually wondering if I was looking at real footage or something from the sim. The "amateur camera" handling was a nice touch!