chaos

Unfortunately it doesn't... buying a set of crappy pedals for 130euros is something I'd like to avoid. I was thinking of building my own but real life has been getting in the way lately... anyway, didn't want to high-jack the thread... carry on Mip! regards.

As an aside... I don't have rudder pedals. Does BS allow for automatic turn coordination or am I stuck with, for instance, the Z- and X- key for rudder control all the time?

I like to see a dialog box (possibly behind the pilots seat) so I can order pizza for delivery whilst flying a mission. ED could enter a partnership with "dominos" or "new york pizza" and get a slice (hehe.. pun intended) of the profits. BRILLIANT!

"you're dangerous..."

Nehalem won't matter much if you play games that are limited by the graphics subsystem. I do believe it (Nehalem) will benefit flight simulation games like DCS:BS because of the rel. high stresses placed on the CPU.

To give you an idea... I 'flew' it during a sim-event in Germany earlier this year. With the simplified FM I managed to lift-off, get it over the treeline and crash it in the field behind it. Total flighttime less than a minute. Basic flying will keep you occupied for many weeks before you're even able to get a missile off the rail, much less put it on_target...

If I understand everything correctly regarding 3rd party add-ons, it is up to ED to decide who gets the tools to make the add-ons. These tools won't be available to everybody... Hex-edits and script-editing will still be the way forward for the vast majority...

I happen to be in Peru at the moment and I get a message " Veoh is no longer available in PERU". I'm sure there's another alternative...

Yeah, at $24.000 a pop, it's a steal... I'll have 2 please :-)

I've copied the list and will stop by at the "Nav. Dept." tomorrow afternoon. 'We' do our own (in-house) navigation documentation so hopefully they'll have something that might be useful (even if we don't fly into these airports on a regular basis).

Especially for mil. airbases there's a need to keep a low-vis profile. In some of the videos you can make out the runway for many miles, even when you're abeam. Welcome Litjan... maybe we should team up for a "runway lights mod." :)

Strictly icons in the Mission Editor. I too miss the 3D models from Flanker 1.X. Unfortunately it's a limitation of the current engine. Supposedly they'll address the issue in the next engine.

In that case; disregard all after "I noticed..." :)

I noticed in some of the videos that the runway edge- and approach lights are visible from all angles. In real life these lights only become visible if one enters a rather narrow cone around the extended centerline of the runway (within approx. 10 degrees on either side). There are standards set for these sort of things. It's no biggie but I wondered if that could be fixed before release (I realize there are probably a lot more pressing issues to be dealt with...).

Yep... 2 weeks to be sure... :)

...Just to let all of you know that the high rez. version of Producers note #6 is online...

That's definitely not true. A high wing is positively stable. In general one uses anhedral to lessen stability (for a variety of reasons)...

Avimus, Your post doesn't make any sense to me, could you elaborate? is..well.. hogwash :) Higher speeds (max velocity) is an aerodynamic and structural issue. The maximum speed of a helicopter is primarily limited by the difference in lift across the advancing and retreating blade. At some point the helicopter will want to roll over and there is nothing that can be done about... except to tilt the rotor (V22) or fold it completely (proof of concept of Boeing). Wether it has stubwings or not has nothing to do with it. In fact, the fastest helicopter is a (modified) Lynx if I'm not mistaken. The effect of anhedral has a negative effect on the stability of an aircraft... is that what you're trying to say because that would be correct. However "broad sweeping turns" has nothing to do with that. The radius of turn is not a function of stability. In the case of the Mi-24 I think it was done for other, possibly structural, reasons. At 20-30kph there's no appreciable amount of lift from the stubwings. It does have a negative effect on lift of the rotor-disc ("shadow" that you mentioned).

no.. I've tried xplane years ago. I should give it another try.

...of course it could be a lack of real "|33t fLyinG sKillz" as well...

Aaaaw Buren... don't even mention MFS. Their FM is so porked, I couldn't land their B777 even if my life depended on it... and I fly 777's for real... :)

Nemises, I think you're not far off. The question is how much of the 'groundwork' has been done to accomodate the 'fast jets' that are in the pipeline. IOW is there 'fancy systems-'code in Black Shark today that one can hook into and use in a newly developed flyable (i.e. defensive sys./radar etc.)? I'm not even sure if the 'fast jets' will be using the current engine. I remember those were to be developed with the next engine in mind... Hmmm.... DCS:Boeing777 might be feasible

The possibility for a 3rd party to add to this simulation is very exciting to say the least. However, we (including myself) shouldn't get ahead of ourselves as there are now more questions than answers regarding this latest announcement. The prospect of, one day, having an F-4E populating the DCS world sounds fantastic but it needs a lot more than just a 3D model of a cockpit and FM to make it 'playable' (let alone approach the quality of the KA-50). How is radar dealt with..? Is it possible to integrate a dual cockpit with DCS:BlackShark..? What data can be exported from the current engine..? In short; there's no telling to what extent all this can be achieved. Hmmmm... DCS:Tornado (with something akin to Digital Integration's mission planner of course...) :)

I was there on friday for approx. half an hour. I would've spent more time but life got in the way... I sat at the controls for about 5 minutes so I couldn't give you an honest review of the game. I was impressed by the UI. Mission planner looked really nice and clean. As a Flanker (1.0) fanatic I always liked the minimalist windows interface but I guess that doesn't fly anymore in this day and age. Loading a simple mission didn't seem to take up a lot of time which was a pleasant surprise. I'd expect that to be improved upon in the final product as there's still a lot of debugging code. I played on Jim's laptop (easy settings). Don't remember the specs but lets be honest... you want to play this simulation on a well-spec'd desktop. It seemed to run fairly smooth but with a lot of "stuff" going on it did choke a few times. Graphics are awesome. Saw soldiers running in the field and it looked very convincing. Jim made a comment about them not being as good as the ArmA soldiers but he was really nitpicking here. This isn't a first person shooter, is it? There were some issues with TrackIR so I actually did very little flying. I briefly hovered and cleared a treeline only to find myself crashing on the other side... Excellent! I would've loved to have a go on Urze's machine but he was busy patching and trying to get things working again. By the time he got the Ka50 on the runway and ready for takeoff it was time for me to RTB. Sorry there's not a whole lot more I can tell you. I didn't even scratch the surface but I liked what I saw. Heck, I would've paid to fool around with the beta. Jim, thanks for letting me catch a glimpse of things to come... I was impressed.

Me too!