NoJoe

Oh geez. Not sure if serious... But challenge accepted anyway! :D --NoJoe

Perhaps if a DCS: F-15 comes out they'll model this. For now, this kind of thing is probably a bit beyond the intended detail level of the Flaming Cliffs aircraft. --NoJoe

Oh, good point. I guess that's what I see at a slightly zoomed in level (I set zoom to TrackIR Z-axis, so I don't have an exact measure). And I do run with antialiasing on. --NoJoe

In my experience in real life I find it very hard to spot other small aircraft (small Cessnas, Pipers, etc.) when they are more than about 3 miles away. They are just too small, and tend to blend into the background too well. Since P-51s and FW-190s are a bit bigger, I'd figure 5 miles would be about the furthest I'd expect to easily spot them, which is about what I get in DCS. So I think the visibility of aircraft as it is now is about right. In my opinion. :) --NoJoe

Haha, I didn't realize that was Wags who chimed in here with the grilled cheese comment. I don't recognize him without the Hornet avatar! :P Also just noticed the Su-25 changes to an A-10 after a bit. --NoJoe

I agree! Plus, this way we actually can play around with the F-15 vs P-51 case. If DCS simulated only one time period we would not necessarily be able to try out "historically inaccurate" cases like that (which I think are actually a lot of fun :thumbup: ). For example: if you want a challenge, try flying one of the A-10C missions with the P-51 instead. Or try the other way if you want to feel powerful! :D I'm glad we can do this, thanks to DCS being able to simulate many different types of aircraft and time periods. Besides, we know what some of us (the community) want; what about what Eagle Dynamics want? It's not all about us, remember. ;) From what Matt has posted it sounds like ED wants to build a simulator that is not restricted to one time period or type of aircraft. And they are doing exactly that! I'm really looking forward to the day I can blast through a WW2 scenario in my carrier-launched Hornet. :D Anyone remember the movie The Final Countdown? :P --NoJoe

Sorry, I'd been telling myself I'd stay out of the debate here, but I have to chime on in this one point. :P Just gotta point out: Lock On (which led to the Flaming Cliffs series) was around before the DCS series began. I don't think the trend is toward "FC3-level" modules; if anything the trend over the last several years has been away from low-fidelity modules, and towards high-fidelity modules such as Blackshark and A-10C. Even Flaming Cliffs itself (released a year after Blackshark, I think) added an AFM aircraft and more detailed avionics for the Russian fighters, which was a trend continued by FC2. I think it might be good to keep in mind 2 things: 1. FC3 comes from the older lower-detail lineage that lead to the DCS series. 2. The Flaming Cliffs series has sold better than the DCS-level modules, as said by Matt Wagner. So instead of seeing FC3 as a trend toward lower-fidelity to please the "mass market", see it as what it is: FC3 is the continuation of the successful past of Eagle Dynamics, and it has allowed them to move forward into the specialized DCS modules that us forum-goers seem to love more. :) --NoJoe

Maybe a 3rd party is working on a DCS-level MiG-29S, and ED doesn't want to duplicate work. Hey, I can dream can't I? :D --NoJoe

I agree! :D I've been having fun just flying around, trying to learn how to fly a damn helicopter. ;) On my first flight I managed to get it up in the air and flying around a little, but when I tried to descend for landing I lost control and ended up smashing it into the ground. It rolled to a stop upside-down about the time my wife walked over. "How's it going, honey?" "I'm fine. Everything's fine" (as I go to the external view, showing an upside down Huey, rocking back and forth gently, slightly on fire). "Good thing you don't fly those in real life, huh?" she said over her shoulder as she chuckled and walked back over to her desk. Hahaha, what a great sim! :D Well done to the ED and the Belsimtek guys! --NoJoe

I don't know helicopters, but I do know airplanes pretty well. Ground effect starts to become effective within one wingspan of the ground. However it's like an exponential curve, so it's barely noticeable until the wing is quite close to the surface. Like within half a wingspan or so. Even then it's only a mild reduction in induced drag. You have to get really close to the surface for ground effect to have a large impact. Again, I don't know exactly how this translates to helicopters, but based on my experience with fixed-wing airplanes I suspect Belsimtek's modelling is probably fairly close to accurate. --NoJoe

Wow, good news for FC3 owners. Thanks ED! :D --NoJoe

I like this business model, too. I'm super interested in the AFM for the SU-27, so that will be a day one purchase for me. But I'm not as interested in the Eagle (for whatever reason), so I can pick and choose which to buy and which not to. (though once a DCS-level Eagle comes out I'll be ALL OVER THAT!) ;) It's awesome, we get good enhancements now without having to wait for the entire thing to be done! The best of both worlds. :D --NoJoe

I think so, yeah. But the point of releasing these aircraft individually is for people who don't already own FC3, especially so they can pay less $ for one aircraft if that's all they're interested in. Not to mention this removes the requirement of having the original Lock On installed, etc. etc. So this release is not for us. It's for the folks who don't have FC3. Seems like a good move in my mind. :) Also: Haven't you seen the announcements of the F/A-18C that's in process? Plus Wags had mentioned they hope to eventually take the F-15C and Su-27 to the same DCS standards. I count 3 fighters right there that will be "correctly reproduced". :thumbup: --NoJoe

Sure, the AT-802U. ... :P Back to the F-35: whenever I play around with an iPhone I think I feel the same way as my grandparents when they use a computer. I kinda stare at it and poke the touch interface occasionally while frowning. I'm wondering if I'll feel the same way when trying to use the F-35 touch screen interface, haha. :lol: Got too used to the F-16 in Falcon BMS, and the A-10C. --NoJoe

I'm really really excited to fly the MiG-21, then the F/A-18C, then this F-35. I think it will be quite eye-opening to move from generation to generation and see the differences in the aircrafts' capabilities. After reading and watching videos about the F-35's cockpit interface and "sensor fusion" I'm pretty much in speechless awe over what it can do. It's like a bunch of fighter pilots sat down and brainstormed a list of things they wish their aircraft could do... And here it is in the F-35! Good luck Kinney! I'll be watching this one with anticipation. :thumbup: --NoJoe

To add to what Grimes said, also don't try flying through them. It ends badly as I discovered one cold boozy night last winter in the A-10. :P --NoJoe

I've still got the original A-10 Attack and A-10 Cuba for Mac sitting at home on the shelf. These videos definitely bring me back! Thanks Aries! :D The physics in those games was well ahead of its time. --NoJoe

Hmmm, after reading through this thread I'm now kinda curious to see the video. I still haven't purchased the Huey (though I shall!) so it's entertaining to see everyone's first impressions of it. :D And Sundowner, I can totally relate to your exacting inspection of the flight model. I do the same thing with planes in X-Plane. :) So it's good to see you and others bringing up specific, detailed flight model notes like these. It makes for a better product for everyone. --NoJoe

Haha, Mr. Wagner delivers. :D --NoJoe

Heh, I went and saw the new Star Trek movie last night with my wife too, and also noticed the A-10s in the previews for those movies. I've definitely been seeing more A-10s around, but Kaiza is probably correct that we simply notice them more now that we're all playing around with DCS. Still, always makes me smile when I see the Hawg on film. Through DCS it has become somewhat special to me. :) --NoJoe

The vector sum of both of those. ^ (the oncoming air as a result of the aircraft's movement through the air, as well as the oncoming air as a result of the propeller's rotation) --NoJoe [EDIT] Or would you subtract the vectors...? I forget. Math was a long time ago. :P Regardless, it's the vector that results when you combine those two vectors together.

So I've been trying to test this as a single-ship, but as SimFreak points out, it's hard to do. I haven't been able to get the bomb to go dumb by occluding the laser behind a building yet, but I haven't quite been able to get my angles right yet either. Seems like the best approach is to start a moderate dive around 25,000 feet, release the bomb around 20,000 and then continue the descent to keep your speed up. That way your plane flies past the target before the bomb gets there. I've flown past the target building while lasing at the base, but the bomb still guided to the spot (even though the spot appeared to be "hidden" on the other side of the building). But again, it's hard to get the angles right as a single. MP buddy lasing would for sure be easier. So those are my not-quite-conclusive results. Science! :D :P --NoJoe

Glad it's all working! :thumbup: --NoJoe

I'll take one of each, please! :D --NoJoe

Hi Badger, :) My solution is to lean slightly in to the screen (so it zooms in slightly), recenter the TrackIR view to there (F12 by default, I believe?), then lean back to my comfy sitting position. Viola, the zoom is slightly further out now! ;) --NoJoe