Weta43

From a programming point of view, a seed value and algorithmic / procedural generation of weather is simpler

Yes, that was my point... ;-)

Oh come on. Everybody knows - it's so obvious - that if only they'd fitted FLIR and an RWR to the Ka-50, it would have had one ! What's with the obsession with the fact that it didn't have those things, when if only things had been different it could have ? ... & if it could have, it might have. ...& if it might have - well that's almost the same as saying it did have. ...& the fact that we don't have any images of FLIR & RWR on Ka-50 is almost certain proof that they were in fact fitted, because no one has an image definitively showing every one of them never had either of these things fitted at any point in time !!! Case proven - please fit them (& please also put an igla in the cockpit for the pilot to fire out the window - it's perfectly possible - prove it's not).

Because before a realistic 'real time' implementation of weather can be done first a 'realistic' representation of weather has to be done & then that has to be able to change dynamically. If they're going to spend time coding, spend that time making: 1/ a realistic representation of different types of weather 2/ the possibility to have the weather states change between types dynamically (as for the current dynamic weather, but with more control and better representation of the weather types) 3/ Once they have both those working well, and nothing left to fix on the user controllable weather - then they should think about the added complexity of trying to drive that off real time data. Real time weather might give you some variety if you've got no 'mission' to do, but if you get in the SIM & are unable to carry out the mission you intended to do because the current real life the weather in that area makes it impossible - it'll get old really quickly.

Yes, there are Igla sitting on the ground beside the Ka-50 You could sit an A bomb on the ground beside a Ka-50 - it doesn't mean the aircraft could launch it. E.D. removed the Moskit from the Su-33 because the real aircraft could carry it - but not launch it... It regularly appeared carrying Moskit or with them sitting beside the aircraft at shows: ..but it couldn't use them.

I think a larger portion of the user-base is more likely to look at their inbox than the forums, and if they see anything interesting, will go to the trouble of updating.

Except that the newsletter goes to people's inbox, which means that people who don't visit the site to see the change-log still get to know what's happening (& believe it or not, some people play the sim, but don't visit the site every day/week).

All it really needs is to be able to change the skin through the liveries part of the loadout page, and - isn't there already a line in the mission editor .lua about test loadout for vehicles (= false) ? Maybe they'e creating that as a more generic cross class ability rather than something that's specific to aircraft, & skins for FARP will arrive as part of a generic change, rather than as a piecemeal change just to FARP.

Oh now you're just letting logic get in the way of a good gripe - shame on you !

For the same date as the 'map' shows. I'm not big on the geography of the area in the map - apart from the UN setting no-man's lands in 2000, which borders have changed since the Golan Heights were occupied in '67 ?

Anybody got a staff group picture from E.D. ?

You can see it climb while in a hover in the video above.

Thanks, very informative.

"Now in Syria map its the same" The borders are marked in orange in 'ALT' view of the Syria map Mission Editor. (& obviously show if you swap to 'Map' view)

… a pig that flies at 180 kn ...

Can you point us at the post before the part you linked to, because the bit you linked to isn't sourced at all. If MiiG engineers compared the results of the calculations used in DCS with their own company wind tunnel testing, presumably E.D. gave them the copyrighted, (encrypted in the app) calculations used to generate the FM, and MiG approved the time & expenses & use of the wind tunnel data associated with the investigation. If E.D. & MiG both sanctioned it, it will be published somewhere, and a link would give the quote's conclusion some weight. Otherwise it's really only hearsay, or personal opinion of the same type as the earlier comment from an actual MiG-29 pilot who said if you allowed for the lack of haptic feedback, and the short sticks we mostly use, landing behaviour in the DCS.MiG-29 was/is as he'd expect...

First few loads will be compiling shaders

Bizare ! It's almost like it's not quite finished ... ! Like maybe, rather than selling it as a finished product, they should be just selling it as early access to people that are interested in helping optimise it prior to it being declared 'finished'. Edit: All the maps have been 'under-optimised' at release, even the various iterations of the Caucus' map. That has had shocking pop-up at various stages. It's good to report issues (like stutter or poor frame rates), it's not helpful to bag the product that was plainly labelled as unfinished.

Doesn't really reinforce the idea of Syria as master of its own destiny does it ?

...because after years of user requests, E.D. made it just another view of the SIM.

This is turning into the same sort of discussion as the features wishlist for the Ka-50 upgrade. 'Navy' F/A-18C were never cleared to use them. DCS models the Navy version. Therefore the version that is available in DCS isn't cleared to use them. Simple as that. We're already getting fantasy systems and weapons on the Ka-50, now we have calls for the same thing on the F/A-18C The thin end of the wedge has been inserted, and now people are pushing to get it further in.

yes

The collective brake does set the altitude hold (when you let it go, not when you release the brake), but unless you're using a model collective, the collective and the collective brake are decoupled in the SIM - so you can move the collective without releasing the brake. In the real aircraft, you have to release the brake to move the collective, & at the point where you'd finished moving the collective and released the brake, the altitude hold would reset the value. In the sim you don't have to release the brake to move the collective, & if you just move the collective without gripping (releasing) then letting go (also releasing :-)) the brake, you appear to just clear the altitude hold setting. Move the collective, reset the brake.

There's a post somewhere from Chizh with a document E.D. were prepared to take as evidence, saying that the flame out results from turbulence over the engine intakes, not ingesting gasses (though that was why Su-25's were forbidden to use S-24s)

There's no recoil on this jet, but the people behind it still take a tumble: wpdnLoram4Q Also - watch the trucks kick with each launch in this: o6aSghkwCEg